JASEF @ JOSEPH KANDHAPAN vs STATE OF ODISHA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV NO.705 of 2026

CNR NO. ODHC010647852026

(In the matter of application under Section 442 read
with Sec. 438 of BNSS).
Jasef @ Joseph Kandhapan … Petitioner
-versus-
State of Orissa … Opposite Party


For Petitioner : Mr. T.K.Mishra, Advocate

For Opposite Party : Mr.P.K.Mohanty, Addl. PP


CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY




DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:02.11.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. The instant criminal revision is directed
against the impugned order dated 15.07.2026 passed
by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Jeypore in Misc. Case No. 32 of 2026 arising out of
TR No. 23 of 2018 refusing to release the Bolero Jeep
bearing Registration No. OD-10A-0529 in favour of
the petitioner in an application U/S. 503 of BNSS.
2. The precise facts giving rise to filing of an
application by the petitioner for release of the
aforesaid vehicle traces its origin to its detention
CRLREV No.705 of 2026 Page 1 of 8

along with the petitioner and four others for allegedly
transporting net weight 98.900 Kgs. of Contraband
Ganja which led the raiding Police Officer detaining
the aforesaid vehicle which was seized later on in
connection with Boriguma PS Case No. 91 of 2018,
but the petitioner claiming himself to be the
registered owner of the aforesaid Jeep has
unsuccessfully approached the Special Judge for its
release.
3. Heard Mr.Tukuna Kumar Mishra, learned
counsel for the revision-petitioner and Mr. P.K.
Mohanty, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused
the record.
4. After having considered the rival
submissions and upon perusal of record, it appears
that the learned Court in seisin over the matter has
refused to release the aforesaid Jeep on the ground
that the petitioner is an accused in this case and the
vehicle is liable for confiscation. In addition, the
learned Court in seisin over the matter has also relied
CRLREV No.705 of 2026 Page 2 of 8

upon the decision in Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of
Assam, 2025 SCC Online SC 40, but in the said
case, the Apex Court has directed for release of the
vehicle in interim zima of its owner. It is obvious that
conveyance used for carrying Contraband Article is
liable to confiscation, nevertheless the same can be
done after an enquiry inasmuch as Sec.60(3) of the
NDPS Act provides that any animal or conveyance
used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance or controlled substances, or any article
liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2) shall be liable to confiscation , unless
the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it
was so used without the knowledge or connivance of
the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-
in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that each
of them had taken all reasonable precautions against
such use. Besides, the 2nd proviso to Sub-Sec.2 of
Sec.63 of NDPS Act itself provides for passing of
interim order for disposal of any article or thing other
CRLREV No.705 of 2026 Page 3 of 8

than narcotic drugs which is liable to speedy and
natural decay or, if the Court is of the opinion that
the same would be for the benefit of its owner, to
direct it to be sold. Thus, these proviso makes it clear
that the interim order regarding disposal of seized
articles for goods other than the Contraband article
obviously includes a conveyance alleged for used in
transportation of contraband article.
5. Assuming the petitioner to be the owner of
the vehicle, but the question whether the vehicle was
used without his knowledge or connivance is a
question of fact to be determined after evidence, if
any is tendered in a proper enquiry or trial. No doubt,
the petitioner is an accused and he is facing trial, but
merely because the petitioner is an accused, it would
not ipso facto debar the release of the vehicle in his
favor. Besides, the accused is presumed to be
innocent until proven guilty at the trial. The scheme
of NDPS Act makes it very clear that the seized
vehicle can be confiscated by the trial Court only on
CRLREV No.705 of 2026 Page 4 of 8

conclusion of trial when the accused is convicted,
acquitted or discharged which further requires the
trial Court to consider that the vehicle is used in
commission of crime and is liable for confiscation, but
before that the trial Court has to give an opportunity
of hearing to the person who may claim any right on
the seized vehicle before passing any order of
confiscation. In this case, the petitioner albeit is an
accused, yet he is presumed to be innocent till found
guilty in the trial and he still can establish that the
vehicle so used was without his knowledge or
connivance and in such event, the vehicle cannot be
confiscated. Be that as it may, there is no specific
bar/restriction under the NDPS Act for release of
seized vehicle used for transporting Narcotic Drugs or
Psychotropic Substances in interim custody of its
owner pending disposal of the criminal case and
thereby, the trial Court has the discretion to release
the vehicle in interim custody of its owner, but
CRLREV No.705 of 2026 Page 5 of 8

subject to certain terms and conditions as deems fit
and proper in this regard.
6. What is most significant is that the vehicle
was in fact seized in the year 2018, but the trial is
yet to be concluded and the vehicle is still lying under
the custody of the police which would enure to the
benefit of none. On the other hand, the vehicle, if
released would be beneficial to both the owner and
the State in case of confiscation since the vehicle, if
kept on road worthy condition would fetch more
price. It cannot be denied that keeping the vehicle
stationary exposing it to sun and shower would only
diminish its value and would benefit to none.
7. In the aforesaid facts and situation and on
consideration of keeping the vehicle Bolero stationary
for around 8 years and considering the same in juxta
position with the provisions of law U/S.60(3) of the
nd
NDPS Act r/w 2 proviso to Sub Sec.2 of Sec.63 of
the NDPS Act and there being no assurance of trial in
this case being likely to be concluded with passing of
CRLREV No.705 of 2026 Page 6 of 8

order on confiscation in near future, the vehicle can
be released in favor of the petitioner in this situation.
Accordingly, this Court considers it proper to direct
the release of the vehicle in favor of the petitioner,
but subject to conditions petitioner furnishing cash
surety of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five
Thousand), in addition to other terms and conditions
as deems fit and proper by the learned trial Court
including the condition of producing photographs of
the vehicle on different angle with undertaking not to
sell the vehicle or transfer the ownership of the
vehicle till conclusion of the trial. Further, the
petitioner must furnish an undertaking to the trial
Court that he shall surrender the Bolero within 7 days
of being so directed, failing which to pay the value of
the vehicle determined accordingly.
8. In the result, the CRLREV stands allowed,
but no order as to costs. Consequently, the impugned
order is set aside and the vehicle in question be
released in favor of the petitioner on such terms and
CRLREV No.705 of 2026 Page 7 of 8

conditions as indicated supra together with the such
other further conditions as deems fit and proper by
the Court in seisin over the matter.

(G. Satapathy)
Judge












Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
nd
Dated the 2 day of November, 2026/Kishore

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 03-Nov-2026 12:47:24
CRLREV No.705 of 2026 Page 8 of 8