Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 184 (UTT)

Neelam Shankhadhar v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-02-15

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 18.01.2022, passed in Misc. Release Application No. 17 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Bablu, by the court of First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the release application filed by the revisionist has been rejected. 2. It appears that the vehicle Registration No. UP 25 DQ 6738 was taken into custody by the Police in connection with FIR No. 05 of 2023, under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”). The revisionist claiming himself to be the registered owner of the vehicle filed an application for the release of the vehicle which has been rejected by the impugned order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is a registered owner of the vehicle. He is ready to furnish the security and he will produce the vehicle as and when required. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that if the revisionist is registered owner of the vehicle, on production of the documents, the vehicle may be released in favour of the revisionist. 6. The impugned order does not reveal that any proceeding for forfeiture of the vehicle has been taken under the provision of any law. 7. During the course of argument, learned State counsel gives a statement that smack was recovered from the vehicle, therefore, it was taken into custody. The revisionist claims himself to be the registered owner of the vehicle. It would very well be verified even through online. The impugned order does not reveal that the revisionist is not a registered owner of the vehicle. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the revision deserves to be allowed. 9. The revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.01.2023 is set aside. 10. Let the vehicle in question be released in favour of the revisionist subject to his furnishing a personal bond and one surety to the satisfaction of the court concerned. It shall be subject to the following conditions:- (i) The revisionist shall not transfer the ownership of the vehicle during the pendency of the case, without prior permission of the court. Let the vehicle in question be released in favour of the revisionist subject to his furnishing a personal bond and one surety to the satisfaction of the court concerned. It shall be subject to the following conditions:- (i) The revisionist shall not transfer the ownership of the vehicle during the pendency of the case, without prior permission of the court. (ii) The revisionist shall not make any structural modification in the vehicle during the pendency of the case, without prior permission of the court. (iii) As and when required by the police or the court, the revisionist shall produce the vehicle at his own expenses.