2026:HHC:25778 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.517 of 2026 Date of Decision: 23.06.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Harsh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. __________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Dhanvanti, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, H.P., whereby application filed by petitioner-accused under Section 530 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short, ‘BNSS’) for release of vehicle bearing registration No.HP-01B-7071, Toyota Rumion, impounded in FIR No.14/2026 dated 24.01.2026, under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, came to be rejected, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2026:HHC:25778 2 under Section 528 of BNSS, praying therein to set aside aforesaid order and allow the application for release of vehicle. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that on 24.01.2026, vehicle bearing No.HP-01B-7071 came to be intercepted by Police for checking and allegedly Police recovered 8 grams of chitta/heroin from the dash board of the afore car. Since petitioner, being owner of the vehicle, was driving the car at the relevant time, he also came to be named in the FIR along with other co-accused namely Vishal, who had allegedly hired the taxi from Mandi to Kullu. 3. Police after having completed the investigation, has presented Challan in the competent Court of law and both the accused, named in the FIR, stand enlarged on bail. Since vehicle, which is taxi, stands impounded, petitioner is unable to earn his livelihood, he filed an application under Section 503 of BNSS, for release of vehicle, however, learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, H.P., vide impugned order dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P-2) rejected the application. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Dhanvanti, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that learned Court below while passing the 2026:HHC:25778 3 impugned order wrongly interpreted the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam, (2025) 1 SCR 281, because in afore judgment, it never came to be ruled that vehicle involved in the transportation of contraband cannot be released on sapurdari during the pendency of the trial or appeal. She states that vehicle involved in illegal transportation of contraband can only be ordered to be confiscated after conviction of accused, but since guilt, if any, of the petitioner is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence in trial, coupled with the fact that considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of trial, no fruitful purpose would be served by not releasing the vehicle on sapurdari, rather in that situation, vehicle would become junk and it would be of no use for the petitioner in the event of his being acquitted. 5. To the contrary, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while supporting the impugned order, submitted that though vehicle involved in the illegal transportation of narcotics can be ordered to be released on sapurdari, but in cases where owner of the vehicle is himself an accused, prayer for release of vehicle on sapurdari cannot be accepted. He vehemently refuted the plea of learned counsel representing the petitioner that judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bishwajit Dey (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. He submitted that very conduct of 2026:HHC:25778 4 petitioner, against whom three cases already stand registered under the NDPS Act, suggests that in the event of vehicle being released, same would be again used for transportation of contraband and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Court below while passing the impugned order. 6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, having taken note of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, straightaway dismissed the application for release, made on behalf of the petitioner, while placing heavy reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bishwajit Dey (supra) and as such, it would be apt to take note of relevant Paras of aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which read as under: “15. Assuming the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle but the question whether the vehicle was used without her knowledge or connivance is a question of fact to be determined after evidence, if any, is produced in proper inquiry. It may not be safe always to accept such a plea as a gospel truth to give interim custody of the vehicle to such a person. Question remains that the vehicle in question was used as a conveyance by the accused who is the husband of the petitioner for carrying the contraband. There seems to be no sound reason that if the owner is not entitled to interim custody of such vehicle because the vehicle is liable to be confiscated, why another person who may be the owner of the vehicle should be given the custody of the vehicle during the pendency of the case till he proves his non-complicity. As 2026:HHC:25778 5 also observed by the Bombay High Court, the purpose of the Act is to see that the vehicle which is used for such conveyance is not made available to the persons indulging in these activities. Confiscation of the vehicle is an additional safeguard to discourage this crime. *** *** *** *** 22. This Court is further of the opinion that there is no specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case. 23. In the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS Act and in view of Section 51 of NDPS Act, the Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. Consequently, the trial Court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim. However, this power would have to be exercised in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of each case. *** *** *** *** 28. Undoubtedly, the Vehicle is a critical piece of material evidence that may be required for inspection to substantiate the prosecution’s case, yet the said requirement can be met by stipulating conditions while releasing the Vehicle in interim on superdari like videography and still photographs to be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the said inventory as well as restriction on sale/transfer of the Vehicle. BROADLY SPEAKING THERE ARE FOUR SCENARIOS 29. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is 2026:HHC:25778 6 recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized / recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner’s knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused.” 7. In aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has specifically held that in the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS Act and in view of Section 51 of NDPS Act, Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS, 2023) for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case and as such, the trial Court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim. However, such power is required to be exercised in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of each case. While taking note of the fact that vehicle is a critical piece of material evidence that may be required for inspection to substantiate the prosecution’s case, Hon’ble Apex Court in afore judgment held that afore requirement can be met by stipulating conditions while releasing the Vehicle in interim on sapurdari like videography and still photographs to be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the vehicle and accused by signing the said inventory as well as restriction on sale/transfer of the vehicle. In afore case, Hon’ble Apex Court carved out four situations, under which vehicle 2026:HHC:25778 7 can be impounded. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized/recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner’s knowledge and connivance. Hon’ble Apex Court in afore judgment has further held that in the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused, whereas in the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused and as such, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on sapurdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused-owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge- sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on sapurdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court. 2026:HHC:25778 8 8. Having taken note of aforesaid aspect of the matter, considered and decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, that in no eventuality, vehicle involved in the transportation of contraband/drugs can be released on sapurdari during pendency of trial, rather Hon’ble Apex Court while carving out four situations, as have been discussed hereinabove, categorically stated that in the first two scenarios i.e. where owner of the vehicle or his driver or cleaner are the persons from whose possession contraband/drug is recovered, vehicle cannot be released on sapurdari, till they discharge the onus and prove that contraband was being transported in the vehicle owned or driven by them without their knowledge, whereas in latter two situations, as have been discussed hereinabove, Court can proceed to release the vehicle on sapurdari during the trial. While carving out afore situations, Hon’ble Apex Court in Para No.31 of the judgment has further clarified that aforesaid discussion should not be taken as laying down a rigid formula, as it will be open to the trial Courts to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant. 9. True it is that in the case at hand, vehicle sought to be released belongs to a person, who himself is an accused, but it is not in dispute that vehicle owned by the accused is taxi and at the time of recovery, one co-accused, who allegedly hired the taxi from Mandi to 2026:HHC:25778 9 Kullu, was also sitting. Whether contraband allegedly recovered from the vehicle sought to be released was being transported with the knowledge of the accused, who is owner of the vehicle, is the question to be decided by the Court below in totality of facts and evidence led on record by the prosecution. Needless to say, vehicle involved in unauthorised/illegal transportation of contraband/drugs can be ordered to be confiscated, but after conviction of the accused, but in case vehicle involved in unauthorised/illegal transportation of contraband/drugs is not released on sapurdari to its owner and the same is left to be parked in Police Station or other places, same would be rendered useless after some time. 10. True it is that vehicle is a critical piece of material evidence, required to prove the case of the prosecution, but certainly such requirement can be met by putting stringent conditions, while ordering release of the vehicle on interim or sapurdari, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bishwajit Dey (supra). Guilt, if any, of the petitioner, who otherwise stands enlarged on bail, is yet to be established on record. Since conclusion of trial may take considerable time and thereafter, party aggrieved of the judgment passed in trial may further file appeal in the Appellate Court, no purpose would be served by not releasing the vehicle involved in the unauthorised/illegal transportation of contraband/drugs, rather in that situation, petitioner, who has been 2026:HHC:25778 10 earning his livelihood, by plying the vehicle as taxi, would be left to starve and in that situation, his family may also suffer. 11. Recently, High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case titled as Gurjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, CRM No.14893 of 2026 in CRA-D No.206 of 2021, decided on 29.05.2026, had an occasion to deal with the similar situation, wherein it, after having taken note of various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time and recent judgment passed in Bishwajit Dey (supra), proceeded to hold as under: “31. An analysis of the legal provisions and the judicial precedents referred to above leads to the following outcome. 32. The conviction of the accused in the trial, who was transporting the drugs in a vehicle, has a bearing on the confiscation of the vehicle. However, there may be cases where none of the grounds for releasing the vehicle apply, and the trial results in an acquittal because the vehicle's recovery cannot be proved. In such cases, there would certainly be no mandate to confiscate the vehicle. Hypothetically, another scenario arises when a person is convicted by the trial Court but files an appeal before a higher Court. The conviction attains finality only when the appeal is decided. If, on appeal, the conviction is set aside and the drugs are not found to have been recovered from the vehicle or are found to have been transported under a license the Court finds valid, then Section 60 of the NDPS shall not apply. 33. It is not that the confiscation of vehicles under the NDPS Act is for dismantling the vehicles that were used to transport drugs, but rather to inflict financial loss on their owners to dissuade their hiring/usage. However, consider a case in which drugs are transported in an airplane, a helicopter, a private train, or a ship. Confiscating such 2026:HHC:25778 11 vehicles would have a devastating effect on owners' finances, on the financial institutions that have hypothecated them by financing their purchases, on the infrastructure, and on commuters' lives. 34. Needless to say, when any confiscated vehicle is kept out of use by placing it in a parking lot, it serves no purpose whatsoever. Eventually, this vehicle will also become unfit for the road and will have to be dismantled, turning it into scrap and, along with this, devaluing it to junk. The vehicle's debris is not without a history: it starts with the excavation of minerals, the journey to refineries and smelters, the production line, and sale; enroute consuming so much toil, time, energy, carbon footprints, space, and money, and if ot monetized before its value erodes, everything goes down the drain without recovering even a fraction of the cost of the long lasting pollutants generated in the entire process, and thus, diminishing the entire human effort. Thus, when the confiscated vehicles are kept inside and outside the compounds of the Police Stations or other places, apart from being the eyesores, all and everyone become the losers, starting from our planet that suffered the irreparable loss, the equity provider, the financier, the purchaser, and even the State, because of the erosion in the value of the machine. 35. In fact, the crime was committed by the driver of the vehicle or by the person who kept drugs in the vehicle, not by the vehicle itself. And there is no assurance that, after the confiscation, the vehicle, when resold by the Government, will not again be used for transportation. As such, after the vehicles are confiscated, they must be released on financial bonds, which means that, if the vehicle is eventually confiscated, the owner shall pay an amount equal to the value of the vehicle as fixed by the Court under confiscation, along with a reasonable rate of interest, to be compounded annually. 36. The truck in question has been in a godown for the last so many years. The applicant is willing to give an undertaking that, in the event the confiscation order is upheld, he undertakes to pay the current 2026:HHC:25778 12 market value of the vehicle, together with interest, as directed by this Court.” 12. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that learned Special Judge, while passing the impugned order, though took note of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bishwajit Dey (supra), but made no attempt to ascertain that petitioner, who is owner of the vehicle sought to be released, has been able to show that contraband/drugs was being transported without his knowledge and connivance and had taken reasonable care for not allowing the vehicle to be used for transporting the contraband. 13. True it is that petitioner herein, who is himself an accused, is the owner of the vehicle, sought to be released, but certainly in the facts and circumstances, narrated hereinabove, he has been able to set up a defence that taxi being driven by him was hired by co-accused from Mandi to Kullu and he had no knowledge of transportation of contraband. It also emerges from the impugned order that prior to filing the application, on which impugned order came to be passed, similar application was filed by accused for release, but since at relevant time he was behind bars and Challan was not filed, same was dismissed. However, after filing of Challan and petitioner being released on bail, he filed fresh application, which otherwise could not have been dismissed on the ground that previous application filed by him was dismissed, especially when he was 2026:HHC:25778 13 able to establish that subsequent application has been filed in changed circumstances. 14. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P-2) is quashed and set aside and Court below is directed to release the vehicle bearing registration No.HP-01B- 7071, Toyota Rumion, impounded in FIR No.14/2026 dated 24.01.2026, under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, in favour of petitioner, subject to conditions, as it may find reasonable and necessary. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. June 23, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge