Allowed

MD Firoz Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Aug 2021Cr.Rev./836/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 836 of 2020, the High Court of Jharkhand set aside the lower court's order rejecting the petitioner's prayer for release of his vehicle though involved in an NDPS case. The High Court held that vehicle involvement itself is not a valid ground for non-release under Section 451 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting release of the vehicle dated 03.09.2020 set aside; case remitted to lower court.

MD Firoz Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 836 of 2020

¶3

Md. Firoz Alam …. ….Petitioner -VersusThe State of Jharkhand …. ….Opp. Party

¶4

CORAM:-HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶5

……. For the Petitioner : - Mr. K. S. Nanda, Adv. For the State : - Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.

¶6

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

¶7

05/03.08.2021

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶9

The instant criminal revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 03.09.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Misc. Criminal Application No. 16/2020 and for release of the Atul (Passenger) vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. JH 07J-5750 in connection with Gumla P. S. Case No. 409 of 2019 corresponding to NDPS Case No. 02 of 2020 for the offence registered under Section 27(b) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Section 21 (a) of the NDPS Act .

¶10

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court below has misguided himself while disposing the application under Section 451 of the Cr. P. C. It has been submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and as per Section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which has been explained by the Apex Court in its judgment rendered in the case Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and Ors. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 1 to the effect that the registered owner is the owner of the vehicle. Further referring to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283 , it has been submitted that vehicle should not be kept in police station 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 has been made.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and it has been submitted that the vehicle in question was involved in the commission of offence under the NDPS Act and as such, vehicle should not be released.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records and the judgments cited above, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has committed error by rejecting prayer of release of the vehicle on the ground that the

¶13

vehicle is involved in the commission of crime as this cannot be a ground for non release of the vehicle under Section 451 of the Cr. P. C.

¶14

In view of the above discussion made, the order dated 03.09.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Misc. Criminal Application No. 16/2020 is, hereby, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the concerned court below to pass an appropriate order within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The court below is at liberty to verify the necessary documents and imposed necessary conditions as per the requirement of law.

¶15

With the above observations and directions, the instant criminal revision stands allowed.

¶16

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶17

Kamlesh/

MD Firoz Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Firoz Alam 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

Pawan Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sidharth Sankar Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohit Hazra Alias Bajrangi Alias Rohit Kumar Hazra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Kumar Singh Vs Baij Nath Singh

Pawan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand