SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C-528 No. 172 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. K.S. Bora, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. By means of the instant criminal miscellaneous application, the applicant seeks quashing of order dated 23.12.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act/1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Misc. Release Application No. 98 of 2024. Further relief is prayed for directing respondents to release the seized vehicle (Alto Car) bearing registration no.UK04 G- 3379 and one Nokia Pad Mobile in favour of the applicant. 3. The facts of the case are that the applicant was arrested in connection with the recovery of 1.206 Kg of charas. In addition to the alleged contraband, a mobile phone and the aforesaid Alto Car were also seized. It is contended that the applicant moved an application seeking release of the seized articles. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 23.12.2025, partly allowed the said application by directing release of Aadhaar Card, PAN card and an amount of Rs.230, while rejecting the prayer for release of the Alto Car and the mobile phone. Aggrieved thereby, the present application has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, as per the prosecution case, the Alto Car in question was allegedly used for transportation of contraband; however, no cogent material has been placed on record to substantiate such allegation. Thus, there is no prima facie material to establish that the Alto Car was used for illegal transportation of narcotic substances. It is argued that the vehicle was merely a mode of conveyance for the applicant and cannot ipso facto be treated as instrumental in the commission of the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the vehicle has been lying in the custody of the police since 19.01.2025 and continued detention would result in its deterioration and depreciation in value. 5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, wherein it was held that prolonged retention of seized vehicles at police stations serves no fruitful purpose. The Magistrate must pass immediate orders for interim release upon appropriate bond, guarantee, or security, to prevent loss or depreciation. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that, upon completion of investigation, the vehicle was found to be involved in the illegal transportation of contraband and, accordingly, proceedings for confiscation have been initiated, and the vehicle remains in the custody of the concerned police station. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The ratio laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat squarely applies to the facts of the present case, particularly with regard to expeditious release of seized vehicles to prevent undue hardship and avoid deterioration, subject to appropriate safeguards. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 23.12.2025 is liable to be interfered with to the extent it rejects the prayer of the applicant for release of the Alto Car bearing registration no.UK04 G-3379 and the mobile phone. 9. Accordingly, the said order is quashed insofar as it relates to dismissal of the applicant’s release application concerning the aforesaid vehicle and the mobile phone. 10. Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. The competent authority is directed to release the aforesaid vehicle and the mobile phone in favour of the applicant/registered owner forthwith, subject to his furnishing adequate bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and upon his undertaking that: (i) he shall produce the vehicle as and when required during investigation or trial; (ii) he shall not transfer, alienate, or create any third-party interest in the vehicle without prior permission of the Court; and (iii) he shall maintain the vehicle in proper condition. It is made clear that such release shall not prejudice the trial. 11. It is specifically made clear that the aforesaid vehicle shall be released subject to the applicant submitting the original registration certificate of the vehicle. (Alok Mahra, J.) 18.02.2026 Ujjwal