Patna High Court
AJAY KUMARversusThe Union of India Through the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Patna Zonal Unit,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The order refusing release of the petitioner's truck is quashed, and the vehicle must be released subject to the petitioner’s undertaking and prescribed conditions.
Summary
Ajay Kumar, the registered owner of a Tata truck, filed an application to have his vehicle released after it was seized by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in connection with a seizure of 750 kg of alleged ganja from the truck. The truck was seized while two other individuals, Dinesh Yadav and Rajkapoor Ray, were arrested and confessed to the offence; the petitioner’s name did not appear in the FIR or the co‑accused’s confessions. The petitioner argued that, under the NDPS Act, a vehicle owned by a person not involved in the offence should be released, relying on Supreme Court precedents. The NCB opposed release, contending that a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act had been issued to the owner and that the vehicle’s registration was in his name, suggesting possible connivance. The Patna High Court, after considering the Supreme Court judgments in Bishwajit Dey (2025), Sainaba (2022) and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (2002), held that there was no material linking the petitioner to the contraband and that keeping the vehicle in police custody served no purpose. Consequently, the court quashed the order refusing release and directed the vehicle be released subject to an undertaking and conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the owner of a vehicle, who is not named in the FIR or confessional statements, can be denied release of the seized vehicle under the NDPS Act.
- Whether a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act suffices to establish the owner's connivance in the offence.
- Whether the court can order release of the seized vehicle upon the petitioner’s undertaking and compliance with procedural safeguards.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 36-C, 451, 51, 67
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- seizure of vehicle
- owner's rights
- Section 67 notice
- release of conveyance
- criminal procedure
- contraband
- undertaking
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35118 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2019 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP.
District- Patna
======================================================
AJAY KUMAR Son of Ram Pravesh Ray Resident of village - Usmanpur,
P.S.- Athmalgola, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India Through the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control
Bureau, Patna Zonal Unit, Patna, Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Pratibha Srivastava, Advocate
For the N.C.B. : Mr. Arvind Kumar, C.G.C.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
8 09-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned C.G.C.
appearing on behalf of the N.C.B.
2. By filing the present application, a prayer has been
made on behalf of the petitioner to quash the order dated
07.02.2020 passed in Special Case No.31 of 2019 (arising out of
F.No.-NCB/PZU/V/07/2019/02.03.2019) passed by the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVIII, Patna, whereby and
whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for release of Tata
Truck, bearing registration No.-BR06GD-2993, has been
rejected.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35118 of 2021(8) dt.09-01-2026
2/6
petitioner is the owner of the Truck in question and is not named
accused in the first information report, which was lodged
against the other accused persons. It is further contended that
the prosecution was initiated against two persons, namely,
Dinesh Yadav and Rajkapoor Ray, who were intercepted with
the Truck in question and recovery of 750 kgs. of brown colour
substance believed to be Ganja was recovered from the said
vehicle. Two accused persons also confessed their involvement
and were taken into custody. So far as the petitioner is
concerned, his name did not transpire in the initial report
registered against two accused persons nor were they named in
the confessional statement of the co-accused persons. The name
of the petitioner surfaced, subsequently, as the owner of the said
truck and a notice under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act was
issued upon the petitioner.
4. It is further contended that beyond issuance of
notice under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act. There is no other
material available on record to show that the contraband
belonged to the petitioner and he was in any way involved in the
transportation of the said contraband. To buttress his
submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed on January 7, 2025
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35118 of 2021(8) dt.09-01-2026
3/6
in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs. The State of Assam reported
in (2025) 3 SCC 241, whereby and whereunder the various
scenarios of release of conveyance has been described and it has
been submitted that the case of the petitioner falls within the
fourth scenario where the recovered contraband was recovered
from a third party occupant of the vehicle and the contraband
stored and transported was not in the knowledge of the
petitioner and his connivance has not been established. It is,
thus, contended that in such a situation, no purpose would be
served in keeping the vehicle in the custody of the police in
abandoned condition. Further, the same would be subject to
causing damage due to the vehicle. An undertaking has been
offered on behalf of the petitioner that he would produce the
said vehicle before the authority concerned as and when
required and would not dispose of the said vehicle.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the N.C.B.,
however, opposes the release of the said vehicle on the ground
that notices under Section 67of the N.D.P.S. Act issued to the
petitioner finding him to be the owner of the Truck and also on
the ground that the mobile recovered from the Truck in question
stood in the name of the petitioner, hence his connivance cannot
be ruled out.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35118 of 2021(8) dt.09-01-2026
4/6
6. At this stage, it would be apt to gainfully refer to
the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sainaba Vs. State of Kerala and Another, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1784 and paragraph-6 and 7 of the said judgment is
being quoted hereunder:
“6. The appellant has urged inter alia that as
per Section 36-C read with section 51 of the
NDPS Act, Criminal Procedure Code would
be applicable for proceedings by a Special
Court under NDPS Act and Section 451 has
an inbuilt provision to impose any specific
condition on the appellant while releasing the
vehicle. The appellant is undoubtedly the
registered owner of the vehicle but had not
participated in the offence as alleged by the
prosecution nor had knowledge of the alleged
transaction.
7. Learned counsel seeks to rely on the
judgment of this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283
opining that it is no use to keep such seized
vehicles at police station for a long period and
it is open to the Magistrate to pass
appropriate orders immediately by taking a
bond and a guarantee as well as security for
return of the said vehicle, if required at any
point of time.”
7. Taking into consideration the facts and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35118 of 2021(8) dt.09-01-2026
5/6
circumstances of this case and also considering the fact that
there is no convincing material on record to indicate the
involvement of the petitioner in the present offence but for
being the owner of the Truck and also considering the fact that
the petitioner undertakes to produce the vehicle as and when
required before the authority or the Court concerned, this Court
is of the view that the order dated 07.02.2020 passed in Special
Case No.31 of 2019 (arising out of F.No.-
NCB/PZU/V/07/2019/02.03.2019), refusing to release the Truck
in question in favour of the petitioner, whereby the petition for
release of the said Truck stood dismissed, is hereby quashed.
8. The learned Court concerned is directed to release
the vehicle in question after preparing a video and still
photographs of the vehicle and after obtaining all
information/document necessary for identification of the
vehicle, which shall be authenticated by the Investigating
Officer, owner of the vehicle i.e. the present petitioner by
signing the same. Further, the petitioner shall not sell or part
with the ownership of the vehicle till the investigation of the
case is completed and also till the conclusion of the trial and he
shall furnish an undertaking that he would surrender the said
vehicle within one week or pay value of the vehicle, if so
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35118 of 2021(8) dt.09-01-2026
6/6
ultimately directed by the Court. It goes without saying that the
petitioner would appear before the N.C.B. and would cooperate
in the process of investigation so that the case may be brought to
its logical end.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Trivedi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.