- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6793 CRL.P No. 8425 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8425 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT, NO.7/1-2, PRIYANK VILLAS, RAMANNA GARDEN, BAGLUR MAIN ROAD, KATTIGENAHALLI, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 063. REPRESENTED BY KAMLESH KUMAR …PETITIONER (BY MS. MAHESHWARI D.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: SALA SAI YASHWANTH REDDY S/O LATE SRI. SALA GOVIND REDDY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT 6-169, CHANDRAPALEM, OPP. DURGA THEATRE, MADHURAWADA, VISHAKAPATNAM (RURAL), VISHAKAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH-530 048. …RESPONDENT (BY MS. SWATHI R BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R. PRASANNA RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2022 PASSED BY THE XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES, BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.896/2022 (NCB F.NO.48/1/22/2021/BZU) (ANNEXURE-A) AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ® Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6793 CRL.P No. 8425 of 2022 RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 451 READ WITH 457 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 SEEKING RELEASE OF VEHICLE i.e., FOUR WHEELER MARUTI SWIFT CAR, VEHICLE BEARING NO.AP-37-DS-2191 (ANNEXURE-D). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER The order passed by the learned Special Judge granting interim custody of the vehicle/Maruthi Swift car bearing registration No.AP 37 DS 2191 to the respondent is challenged in this petition by the petitioner/complainant namely Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bangalore Zonal Unit. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold. Firstly, it is contended that the learned Special Judge except stating that the Special Court is conferred with the power/jurisdiction to consider the application for the interim custody of conveyance/vehicle under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. in cases arising out - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6793 CRL.P No. 8425 of 2022 of provisions of NDPS Act, has not considered the case on merits. Secondly, it is contended that the learned Special Judge has failed to take into consideration that a vehicle seized in case of this nature is required for identification and if the vehicle is released, there is likelihood of the vehicle being not produced before the Court at the relevant time. 3. Learned counsel Ms.Maheshwari D.M., appearing for the petitioner has contended that in the vehicle in question, the accused were carrying contraband i.e., 21 grams of MDMA, methamphetamine weighing 40 gms and methaqualone weighing 3 grams. She contended that the accused have used the vehicle to carry obnoxious drug and the MDMA which was seized in this case is commercial quantity. Drawing the attention of the Court to the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Union of India Through C.R.P.F. 61 B.N. v. Union of India Through Central Excise Department (2008 SCC online Pat 392), she contended that Section 60 of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6793 CRL.P No. 8425 of 2022 NDPS Act provides for confiscation of seized materials including Narcotic Drugs Substance, apparatus, utensils etc., used in commission of offence. Section 63 lays down procedure for confiscation of seized material and therefore, in the present case the vehicle in question in which the accused was carrying commercial quantity of narcotic drugs is liable to be confiscated. She contended that the allegations are serious in nature and therefore, the Special Judge was not justified in releasing the vehicle to the interim custody of the respondent. She has relied on para-9 of the above referred judgment, which reads as under: “9. The decision cited by the learned Counsel for the opposite party reported in 2005 SCC does not lay down any law. However, it goes to show that in cases under N.D.P.S. Act release of vehicle is not a matter of routine. The Apex Court in above decision has set aside the order of High Court regarding release of vehicle and directed the respondent to surrender the vehicle. In short order, the Apex Court in paragraph-3 has observed as follows:- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6793 CRL.P No. 8425 of 2022 “3. By the impugned order, the High Court has directed for release of the vehicle during trial of the accused for violation of the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act). In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the High Court was not justified in releasing the vehicle." 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent has contended that the applicant/respondent was not arraigned as an accused in this case. Admittedly, he is the registered owner of the vehicle and as per prosecution material, it was accused No.1 who borrowed the said vehicle and therefore, he was totally unaware of the fact that the said vehicle was being used to carry any drug much less the narcotic drugs as alleged. She contended that the Special Court has the power to release the vehicle and after considering the entire facts and circumstances, the learned Special Judge was pleased to pass the order releasing the vehicle to the interim custody of respondent. She submitted that the respondent will - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6793 CRL.P No. 8425 of 2022 strictly abide the conditions imposed and now, in view of the stay order granted by this Court, the vehicle is exposed to sunlight and rain since 22.10.2021 and if the vehicle is not released pending disposal of trial, it will become worthless. 5. Learned counsel Ms. Swathi R. Bhat, appearing for respondent has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bishwajit Dey v.The State of Assam reported in (2025) 1 SCR 281 in support of her contention. 6. The NCB has registered a case against 5 persons for offences punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 22(a), (b), (c), 25, 27, 27A, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act alleging that they were carrying 21 grams of MDMA, 40 grams of methamphetamine and 3 grams of methaqualone in the said car on 22.10.2021. The accused were arrested and the vehicle in question i.e., Maruthi Swift Car bearing registration No.AP-37-DS-2191 as well as the contraband were seized under a mahazar in the presence of panchas. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6793 CRL.P No. 8425 of 2022 7. The learned Special Judge, vide order dated 1.6.2022 was pleased to allow the application filed by the applicant/registered owner of Maruthi Swift Car on conditions, which are as under: 1. The applicant shall not sell, alienate, change the parts, colour of the vehicle till the disposal of the case. 2. It shall produce the vehicle whenever require for trial. 3. IO., shall take the photograph at the time of release of vehicle and shall produce the same to the court. 8. It is not disputed that the Special Court was conferred with the power/jurisdiction to consider the application for interim custody of vehicle in cases arising out of the provisions of the NDPS Act. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner was not among the accused and he was not present when the vehicle was intercepted by the NCB officials. The defence taken by the respondent during interrogation was that accused No.1 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6793 CRL.P No. 8425 of 2022 requested to lend his car as his mother needed to go for medical treatment at Vijayawada and keeping in mind the medical emergency, he lent the car to the said accused. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bishwajit Dey (supra) has dealt with the need to release the vehicle to the interim custody by referring to various other judgments pronounced by it. It is useful to refer to two of the judgments cited by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned decision, at paras-10 and 11 of the said judgment, which are extracted hereunder: “10. He submitted that this Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai V. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 has held, "In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles." - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6793 CRL.P No. 8425 of 2022 11. He pointed out that the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Bhola Singh @ Ayush Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Criminal Misc. No. 40912/2016, has held that "...... As far as vehicle is concerned, there was no reason to reject the application of the petitioner for its release to interim custody of the applicant claiming to be bona fide owner of the vehicle subject to certain conditions to ensure production of the vehicle to the court as and when required during pendency of the trail or confiscation proceeding……….” 10. In the decision referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was a case wherein certain CRPF personnel in garb of uniform used department’s vehicles for smuggling of contraband ganja in huge quantity. In that context, the Court has held that the offence committed is serious in nature and therefore, release of the vehicle would not be proper. 11. Considering the facts of the present case, this Court finds that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Special Judge in releasing the vehicle to the interim custody of respondent/registered owner of the car. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6793 CRL.P No. 8425 of 2022 The learned Special Judge has imposed conditions including that the applicant shall not sell, alienate, change the parts, colour of the vehicle till the disposal of the case; to produce the vehicle whenever required for trial. Further, the I.O. has been directed to take photograph at the time of release of vehicle and produce the same to the Court. The respondent has undertaken to comply with the above conditions strictly. Hence, the following order: ORDER i. Petition is dismissed. ii. The order dated 1.6.2022 passed by the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Bangalore in Spl.CC No.896/2022, releasing the vehicle/Maruthi Swift Car bearing registration No. AP 37 DS 2191 to the interim custody of the respondent is confirmed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6793 CRL.P No. 8425 of 2022 iii. The respondent shall strictly adhere to the conditions imposed by the learned Special Judge. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE TL List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3 Ct:ar