Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:25470 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 223 of 2026 Sahdev Yadav, S/o Jgarnath Yadav, R/o Village- Bhang, Dumbi Brhmana Badhar, Haphuwa, Pathalgora, P.O. + P.S.- Sadar Chatra, District- Chatra ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P. ---------- 03/24.08.2026 Heard Mr. Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Spl. P.P. for the State. This application is directed against the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge, NDPS, Cases, Chatra in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1365/2025, corresponding to NDPS Case No. 12/2024, arising out of Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No. 53/2023, whereby and whereunder, the application preferred by the petitioner for release of his Bolero vehicle bearing registration no.- JH-13D-7721 has been rejected. It has been alleged that on a secret information a search was conducted in a Bolero vehicle bearing registration no.- JH-13D-7721 which was parked outside the house of the named accused Rupesh Yadav and 2.800 Kg. of opium was recovered from inside the vehicle. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the registered owner of Bolero vehicle bearing registration no.- JH-13D-7721 and the main accused Rupesh Yadav is the son of the petitioner on account of which the prayer for release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel submits that final form has been submitted in favour of the petitioner whereas Rupesh Yadav has been convicted vide judgment dated 20.06.2025. Learned counsel has referred to the case of “Bishwajit Dey versus The State of Assam” reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241 and has submitted that various scenarios have been depicted in the said judgment and the case of the present petitioner comes within the fourth scenario which would entail release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made in this application but has accepted the fact that final form had been submitted by the Police in favour of the petitioner. It appears from the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 that the primary reason for rejection of the application for release of the Bolero vehicle in favour of the petitioner was that the petitioner did not whisper about the Bolero vehicle being used by his son without his knowledge and that he had taken all reasonable precautions that the vehicle was not being used for contraband trafficking. This finding of the learned trial court seems to be contrary to the records in view of the fact that final form has been submitted by the Police in favour of the petitioner. In fact, the son of the petitioner has already been convicted by the learned trial court. So far as the case of “Bishwajit Dey versus The State of Assam” (supra) is concerned, the various scenarios have been depicted in the following paragraphs: “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 case of the present petitioner would come under the fourth scenario where the contraband is seized/ recovered from a third-party occupant 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. This is on account of the fact that it was recovered from the third-party occupant who happens to be the son of the petitioner and there was no knowledge of the owner with respect to the storage of a contraband which is substantiated by the final form submitted in favour of the petitioner. The same would, therefore, entitle the petitioner for release of the vehicle of which he is the registered owner. The learned trial court having not considered this aspect of the matter, the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, NDPS, Cases, Chatra in Misc Criminal Application No. 1365/2025, corresponding to NDPS Case No. 12/2024, arising out of Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No. 53/2023, is hereby quashed and set aside with a direction to the learned trial court to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner on sufficient proof produced by the petitioner with respect to his ownership over the Bolero vehicle bearing registration no.- JH-13D-7721 and on the terms and conditions the learned trial court may impose. This application stands disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Dated, the 24th August, 2026 A. Sanga/- Uploaded on 25 /08/2026