IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, KHURDA

AT BHUBANESWAR

Crl. Misc. Case No.121 of 2018

(Arising out of T.R. Case No.3152 of 2018, corresponding
to Infocity P.S. Case No.207 dated 29.11.2018)

Sabita Mohanty, aged about 43 years, D/o. Satyabadi

Mohanty, W/o. Late Benudhar Nath, resident of
Padmakesharipur, P.O. – Kalarahanga, P.S. – Mancheswar,
Bhubaneswar, District – Khordha, Odisha
... Petitioner

-Vrs-

State of Odisha ... Opposite Party

Counsel:
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Ahmed & Associates
For Opposite Party : Mr. B.K. Panda, P.P.

Date of Hearing: 29.01.2019

Date of Order: 30.01.2019

ORDER
This is an application under Section 457 Cr.
P.C. and it has been filed for release of one motor cycle
viz Classic 350 having registration OD33V2539, which has
been seized for allegedly being utilized for transportation
of Brown Sugar (Heroin). The petitioner claims to be the
owner of the seized vehicle.

2. At the outset, it would be appropriate to make

 2

a reference to the prosecution case. Allegedly, on

29.11.2018 at about 8.30 PM, on receipt of reliable
information that a person, namely, Krushna Nath was
selling contraband article to the general public near
Punjab National Bank, Patia Railway Station road, the S.I.
of Police, Infocity P.S. proceeded to the spot along with
his staff, physically searched the said person and
recovered 28 grams of contraband Brown Sugar, besides
cash of Rs.87,865/- and the alleged vehicle. The accused
was arrested and the contraband substance and the bike
were seized. Thereafter, the accused was forwarded to
the Court for commission of offence punishable under
Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (in short, ‘the Act’).

3. During course of hearing, learned counsel for

the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in no
way involved in this case. According to the learned
counsel, the vehicle has been wrongfully seized by the
police personnel. The vehicle is a machinery and it is lying
unused since the date of its seizure, as such, it is losing
roadworthiness day-by-day and by the time, the trial
would be over, the vehicle must have lost its
roadworthiness completely. The petitioner is the
registered owner of the vehicle, hence the vehicle be
released in her interim zima and in such an event, the
petitioner would abide by all the conditions to be imposed
 3

by the Court.

4. On the contrary, learned P.P. would submit

that at the instance of the petitioner, the accused was
selling the contraband. The vehicle was being utilized by
the accused to transport the contraband and at the end of
trial, the vehicle is liable to be confiscated. So, it should
not be released in interim zima of the petitioner, as in the
event of the vehicle being released, according to the
learned P.P., the same will be utilized for commission of
the offence alleged.

5. Perused the CMC record and also the T.R. case

record. Although materials on record disclose a prima
facie case against the accused for commission of the
offence alleged, yet it is seen from the documents
available on record that the petitioner is the registered
owner of the seized vehicle. As per sub-Section (3) of
Section 60 of the Act, the vehicle is liable to be
confiscated. However, as per Section 63 of the Act,
confiscation order can be passed only at the end of trial.
The trial in this case would take time to conclude. The
vehicle is a machinery and it is lying on the P.S. premises
since the day of its seizure. The vehicle must be lying
unused and from that fact, it can reasonably be inferred
that the vehicle must be losing its roadworthiness. In the
case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs State of Gujarat,
reported in (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444, the Hon’ble Apex
 4

Court observed at para-17 that it is of no use to keep

such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long
period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders
immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as
well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required
at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of
applications for return of such vehicles. Besides the
above, a report dated 28.01.2019 is also received from
the I.O. that the seized vehicle is not required for further
investigation into the case.

6. In consideration of the above facts and

circumstances, I see no reason to prolong the detention
of the vehicle on the premises of Infocity P.S. If
ultimately, at the end of trial, it is decided that the vehicle
is liable to confiscation, then, necessary order would be
passed.
Resultantly, the CMC is allowed on contest.
Let the seized vehicle viz motor cycle bearing registration
OD33V2539 be released in interim zima of the petitioner
on her satisfying the following conditions.
(i) That, she shall furnish an indemnity bond for
Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand) with
one solvent surety for the like amount;
(ii) she shall not dispose of the vehicle without
the leave of the Court and until then, not to
tamper with it, in any manner, whatsoever;
(iii) she shall submit three colour photographs of
the vehicle, taken from front, side and back;
 5

(iv) she shall furnish an undertaking that she shall

produce the vehicle in Court or before any
authority, as and when required; and
(v) she shall not dispute her identity and the
identity of the vehicle in relation to her, in
future.

Accordingly, the proceeding stands disposed

of.
Tag the CMC record with the T.R. case record.

Dictated & Corrected

Sessions Judge, Khurda

at Bhubaneswar
6