Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:21083 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 422 of 2026 Upendra Kumar … ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Spl.PP --- Order No. 02 Dated 17th July, 2026 Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides. This application is directed against the order dated 11.02.2026 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1953 of 2025 arising out of Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 146 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Chatra, whereby and whereunder, the application preferred by the petitioner for release of Swift Dezire vehicle which was seized by the police has been rejected. It has been alleged that the Swift Dezire car of the petitioner was apprehended by the police and from inside the car 8.5000 Kg. of Doda and Doda Powder were recovered. The petitioner was also arrested. The petitioner had preferred an application for release of the Swift Dezire vehicle bearing registration No. JH01FP-0240, but the said application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Chatra on 11.02.2026 which is the order impugned in the present application. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already been granted bail. It has been submitted that the vehicle in question has been kept in the Police Station and is facing the vagaries of weather and therefore in such circumstances, it is desirable that the vehicle be released in favour of the petitioner. Learned Spl. P.P. has opposed prayer made in this application and has referred to the case of Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241 while submitting that since the petitioner was also apprehended from inside the vehicle from which a huge quantity of Doda and Doda Powder were recovered, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of the vehicle in question. In Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (Supra) it has been held as follows: “ … 33. 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 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. 34. This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on superdari 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 superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated. …” The aforesaid paragraphs reveal four scenarios and in view of the first scenario, the vehicle cannot be released till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused owner. It appears that the petitioner was apprehended along with the vehicle with a huge quantity of Doda and Doda Powder and the same would come within the first scenario as depicted in Para-33 of the judgment under reference. In such circumstances, the learned Page-2 trial court has appropriately considered the fact that the petitioner was involved in transporting Doda and Doda Powder and has thereafter rejected the petition for release of the vehicle, preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 11.02.2026. I do not find any reasons to conclude otherwise and consequently this revision application stands dismissed as well. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.) 17.07.2026 MK Page-3