"Patna High Court Orders Release of Seized Vehicle, Citing Apex Court Guidelines"

 

Introduction

The High Court of Judicature at Patna recently adjudicated on a petition filed by Mr. Bharat Bhushan Prasad against the State of Bihar, concerning the seizure of his Maruti Swift Dezire car (Registration No. BR 01 EQ 7473). The case, listed as Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8703 of 2022, arose from Patliputra Police Station Case No. 466 of 2021. The vehicle in question was seized in connection with an alleged crime involving the possession of firearms and Ganja, punishable under the NDPS Act and the Arms Act. This analysis delves into the intricacies of the judgment, its legal implications, and the adherence to the principles established by the Apex Court in similar cases.

Case Background

On January 6, 2022, the learned Sessions Judge cum Special Judge NDPS, Patna, dismissed the petitioner’s plea for the release of his vehicle. The vehicle was apprehended by police during patrolling, where the informant, along with other personnel, chased and overtook the car, subsequently apprehending three individuals. Upon searching the vehicle, two pistols, live cartridges, and a bundle of Ganja were discovered.

The petitioner, Mr. Prasad, asserted that he was not named in the FIR nor had he been accused in the case. He maintained that he was the rightful owner of the vehicle, having purchased it on a hire-purchase basis from Yes Bank on February 20, 2022, and was still making EMI payments of Rs. 9858/-. Furthermore, Mr. Prasad contended that his vehicle had no connection to the alleged crime, and keeping it at the police station under open conditions would cause deterioration to the vehicle. He also highlighted that no confiscation proceedings were pending against the vehicle.

Arguments from Both Parties

The petitioner’s counsel emphasized the absence of confiscation proceedings and argued that retaining the vehicle would serve no useful purpose. The petitioner also undertook to comply with any terms and conditions the court may impose for the vehicle’s release.

Conversely, the counsel representing the state opposed the plea, underscoring that the vehicle was seized in connection with a case under sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act and sections 25(1-b)a, 26, and 35 of the Arms Act.

Court’s Observation and Judgment

The court, presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh, evaluated the materials on record and noted that the Sessions Judge failed to properly apply the provisions of Chapter XXXIV of the Cr.P.C. Additionally, the court referenced the landmark judgment of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638), wherein the Apex Court laid down guidelines concerning the release of vehicles seized in connection with criminal cases.

The Apex Court had emphasized that seized vehicles should not be allowed to deteriorate under the custody of the police for long durations. Instead, such vehicles should be released to the rightful owner upon the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Recognizing that no confiscation proceedings were pending against Mr. Prasad’s vehicle, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated January 6, 2022, deeming it erroneous and unjust. The court directed the trial court to release the vehicle to Mr. Prasad within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order, subject to terms and conditions considered appropriate by the trial court. However, the petitioner was restricted from selling or creating any third-party interest in the vehicle while the case was pending.

Significance of the Judgment

The judgment reaffirmed the principles established by the Apex Court concerning the release of seized vehicles. By following the precedent set by Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the court ensured that the vehicle's owner was not unjustly deprived of its possession without valid justification. The court also underscored the importance of preventing unnecessary deterioration of assets seized in connection with criminal cases.

Conclusion

The decision of the Patna High Court in this case highlights the judiciary's balanced approach in safeguarding the rights of property owners while ensuring compliance with the law. It is a reminder to lower courts to properly assess the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and adhere to established legal principles when dealing with cases involving the release of seized vehicles.

Read the full judgement Below;

NiM4NzAzIzIwMjIjMSNO-NuMDPQeoyI0=