Remanded

Ashwini Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Aug 2021Cr.Rev./412/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court set aside an order refusing release of a scorpio vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C., holding that potential confiscation under the NDPS Act is not a valid ground for denial. The matter was remitted to the lower court for appropriate order. Case disposed.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 20.02.2020 refusing release of the vehicle is set aside and the matter remitted to the lower court for fresh consideration.

Ashwini Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 412 of 2020

¶2

....

¶3

Ashwini Kumar Singh	.… Versus	Petitioner
The State of Jharkhand	....	Opposite Party
CORAM: HON’BL	.... E MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUM	AR
For the Petitioner	: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
For the State	: Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P.
For the NCB	: Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI.

¶4

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

¶5

09/06.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the NCB.

¶6

The instant application has been filed against the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Misc. Criminal Application No.198 of 2019 (N.D.P.S. 1 of 2019), registered for the offence under Section 8(c) read with section 20(b)(ii)(C) & 29 of the NDPS Act whereby the prayer for release of Mahendra scorpio vehicle and the same is presently pending in the court of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Lohardaga.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the prayer for release of the alleged scorpio vehicle has been refused by the court below on the ground that the said vehicle has been used in commission of the crime and for which a case has been registered being N.D.P.S. Case No.1 of 2019.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vrs. State of Jharkhand , reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 , has submitted that the vehicle in question should not be kept in police station for long period as the same is the national loss. It has been submitted that for protecting the evidentiary value of the vehicle, panchnama etc. may be prepared and for protecting the power of confiscation, the owner of the vehicle may be bounded by necessary indemnity bond, solvent security etc. On the above submission, prayer for release of the vehicle has been made.

¶9

Learned counsel for the NCB has opposed the prayer and submitted that the alleged vehicle was involved in commission of the crime.

¶10

Having heard the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the alleged vehicle was used in commission of the crime and the petition under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., for release of the said vehicle, has been rejected by the court

¶11

below on the ground that the vehicle may be confiscated under Sections 60 and 61 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which is not a valid ground for refusal of release of the vehicle.

¶12

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Misc. Criminal Application No.198 of 2019 (N.D.P.S. 1 of 2019) is, hereby, set aside.

¶13

The matter is remitted back to the court below for passing an appropriate order, after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai (supra), within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order.

¶14

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed opinion regarding merit of the case. The court below will pass order without being prejudiced by this order.

¶15

It is also made clear that the court below will examine all the relevant documents with respect to the vehicle and entitlement of the petitioner, who is claiming the release of the vehicle and further if it is required then necessary condition should be imposed by the court below for protecting the evidentiary value and power of confiscation.

¶16

With above observation and direction, the present criminal revision stands disposed of.

¶17

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶18

Shahid/

Ashwini Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwini Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sameer Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mamita Dwivedy Vs the State of Jharkhand

Keshav Sao Alias Keshav Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sameer Dang Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Mehta Alias Amit Kumar Mehra Alias Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand