Allowed

Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, U.P. Lko. and Anr.

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2022CRLR/3647/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision challenging the refusal to release a seized canter. It held that since the registered owner was not implicated and no confiscation proceedings were initiated, the vehicle must be released subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Trial court directed to release the seized canter in favour of the registered owner after imposing suitable conditions including surety and personal bonds.

Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Through Principal… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3647 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, U.P. Lko. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Jai Shankar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Jai Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 14.07.2022 passed by Additional District and Session Judge/N.D.P.S. Act, Court No.4, District- Etah in Criminal Misc. Case No.313 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.75 of 2022, under section- 207 M.V. Act, Police Station- Marahara, District- Etah by which the vehicle bearing Canter No. UP 86 T 3558 was refused to be released in favour of the revisionist.

¶8

I have perused the impugned order. While dismissing the release application, the trial court noted that a huge quantity of narcotics substance was allegedly recovered from the vehicle, therefore the court below did not find it appropriate to release the same in favour of its registered owner. The relevant facts are that an F.I.R. was registered under section- 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 against three persons for carrying illegal substance, which was not permitted to be transported without license under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. As per prosecution case, the prohibited substance was being carried in certain packets kept in that canter.

¶9

No evidence was found as to involvement of the registered owner- the applicant/revisionist in this case. It is not the case of the respondent that any confiscation proceedings has been initiated or was ever intended to be initiated in respect of the vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle was detained in this case and the provisions of section- 451 Cr.P.C. do apply. This fact has also been brought to my notice that the vehicle is detained since last several months. In my view, in the light of judgement of Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 , the vehicle ought to have been released in favour of its registered owner subject to suitable conditions to be imposed, if required, by the trial court.

¶10

In the light of above observation, the revision is allowed and the trial court is directed to release the vehicle in question in favour of its registered owner only, after imposing suitable conditions as per discretion of the court concerned, if required, on furnishing surety bond and personal bond of suitable amount as fixed by the trial court.

¶11

Order Date :- 13.12.2022 Saif

¶12

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.12.14 10:45:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, U.P. Lko. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, U.P. Lko. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

X Minor Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devendra Kumar @ Devendra Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Juvenile X Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

X Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile X Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.