MANOJ SINGH RAWAT vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Office
Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
or
directions
and
Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS


UKHC010186032026
C528/2285/2026

Manoj Singh Rawat
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the
applicant.
2. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, D.A.G. for the State.
3. By means of the instant criminal
miscellaneous application, the applicant seeks
quashing of order dated 05.10.2026 passed by
learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge/Special Court (NDPS Act), Nainital in
Vehicle Release Application No. 126 of 2026,
State Vs. Manoj Singh Rawat. Further relief is
prayed for directing respondents to release the
seized vehicle bearing registration no.
UK04AC6511 (TVS NTORQ 125 Scooty) and a
mobile phone in favour of the applicant.
4. The facts of the case are that the
applicant was arrested in connection with the
recovery of 660 grams of charas. In addition
to the alleged contraband, a mobile phone and
the aforesaid scooty were also seized. It is
contended that the applicant moved an
application seeking release of the seized
articles. The learned trial Court, vide order
dated 05.10.2026 rejected the said
application. Aggrieved thereby, the present

application has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that, as per the prosecution case, the
scooty in question was allegedly used for
transportation of contraband; however, no
cogent material has been placed on record to
substantiate such allegation. Thus, there is
no prima facie material to establish that the
scooty in question was used for illegal
transportation of narcotic substances. It is
argued that the vehicle was merely a mode of
conveyance for the applicant and cannot ipso
facto be treated as instrumental in the
commission of the alleged offence. It is also
submitted that the vehicle has been lying in
the custody of the police and continued
detention would result in its deterioration and
depreciation in value.
6. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported
in (2002) 10 SCC 283, wherein it was held
that prolonged retention of seized vehicles at
police stations serves no fruitful purpose. The
Magistrate must pass immediate orders for
interim release upon appropriate bond,
guarantee, or security, to prevent loss or
depreciation.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel
submits that, upon completion of
investigation, the vehicle was found to be
involved in the illegal transportation of
contraband and, accordingly, proceedings for
confiscation have been initiated, and the
vehicle remains in the custody of the
concerned police station.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on record.
The ratio laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal

Desai Vs. State of Gujarat squarely applies to
the facts of the present case, particularly with
regard to expeditious release of seized vehicles
to prevent undue hardship and avoid
deterioration, subject to appropriate
safeguards.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the
impugned order dated 05.10.2026 is liable to
be interfered with.
10. Accordingly, the said order is quashed
insofar as it relates to dismissal of the
applicant’s release application concerning the
aforesaid vehicle and a mobile phone.
11. Consequently, the Criminal
Miscellaneous Application stands allowed to
the aforesaid extent. The competent authority
is directed to release the aforesaid vehicle in
question and the mobile phone in favour of
the applicant/registered owner forthwith,
subject to his furnishing adequate bonds and
sureties to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned and upon his undertaking that: (i)
he shall produce the vehicle as and when
required during investigation or trial; (ii) he
shall not transfer, alienate, or create any
third-party interest in the vehicle without
prior permission of the Court; and (iii) he shall
maintain the vehicle in proper condition. It is
made clear that such release shall not
prejudice the trial.
12. It is specifically made clear that the
aforesaid vehicle shall be released subject to
the applicant submitting the original
registration certificate of the vehicle.



(Alok Mahra J.)
16.10.2026
Ujjwal