GURVINDER SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010083832026
2026:UHC:7798
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
or directions and
Registrar’s order with
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
SL.
Date
No.
Signatures
WPCRL/910/2026
Gurvinder Singh ………. Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand ……… Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3. By means of the present criminal writ
petition, filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks
issuance of a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari for quashing the order
dated 15.04.2026, passed by the learned
st
Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act/1 Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, in
Vehicle Release Application No. 34 of 2026.
The petitioner has further sought issuance of
a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the court
concerned to release the seized vehicle,
namely, Mahindra Scorpio bearing
Registration No. UK-18G-7100, in favour of
the petitioner, who claims to be its registered
owner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner is the
registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle. It is
submitted that F.I.R. No. 0380 of 2025 was
registered at Police Station Ramnagar,
District Nainital, for the offences punishable
under Sections 8/20/60 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “N.D.P.S.
Act”).
UKHC010083832026
2026:UHC:7798
5. It is submitted that, according to the
prosecution case, on 22.10.2025, while the
informant and other police personnel were
on routine checking duty, the aforesaid
Scorpio vehicle was intercepted and
searched; that, during the course of the
search, one person, namely Harjeet Singh,
was allegedly found in possession of 44.05
kilograms of Ganja; that, the said accused
was arrested and the contraband was seized;
that, the vehicle in question was also taken
into custody by the police in connection with
the said offence.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
would further submit that the petitioner was
neither present at the spot at the time of the
alleged recovery nor was he arrested in
connection with the aforesaid case; that, no
contraband was recovered from the
possession of the petitioner; that, the vehicle
had allegedly been taken by accused Harjeet
Singh on the pretext of attending a marriage
ceremony and that the petitioner had no
knowledge whatsoever regarding the alleged
transportation or possession of any
contraband substance in the vehicle.
7. Learned counsel would submit that the
accused Harjeet Singh, from whose
possession the contraband is alleged to have
been recovered, has already been enlarged
on bail. He would further submit that the
petitioner thereafter moved an application
for release of the vehicle before the learned
Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act/1st Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, inter
alia, contending that the vehicle was lying
unattended in the open premises of the
police station and was continuously
UKHC010083832026
2026:UHC:7798
deteriorating due to exposure to sun, rain
and other natural elements. However, the
learned court below, vide the impugned
order dated 15.04.2026, rejected the
petitioner’s application for release of the
vehicle. Hence, the present writ petition has
been preferred.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel would
oppose the writ petition and submit that the
vehicle in question was allegedly used in the
commission of an offence under the N.D.P.S.
Act. It is further submitted that this is
allegedly not the first occasion on which the
vehicle has been found involved in an offence
relating to narcotic substances and,
therefore, there is an apprehension that, in
the event of its release, the vehicle may
again be used for illegal activities.
9. In reply, learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that the petitioner
has not been implicated as an accused in
the case merely by virtue of his ownership of
the vehicle; that, hHe was neither
apprehended at the spot nor was any
recovery effected from his personal
possession; that, mere seizure of a vehicle
during investigation cannot, by itself, deprive
its registered owner of interim custody
thereof for an indefinite period, particularly
when the vehicle is lying exposed in the
premises of the police station and is liable to
deteriorate with the passage of time.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record.
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is
the registered owner of the vehicle in
question, namely, Scorpio bearing
UKHC010083832026
2026:UHC:7798
Registration No. UK-18G-7100. It is also not
disputed that the vehicle has remained in
police custody since its seizure and is lying
in the open premises of the police station.
The material available on record further
indicates that the petitioner was not
apprehended at the place of the alleged
recovery and no contraband was recovered
from his personal possession. The person
from whom the contraband is alleged to have
been recovered has already been enlarged on
bail.
12. The question, therefore, which arises
for consideration is whether the seized
vehicle should be permitted to remain
exposed to the vagaries of weather and
deterioration during the pendency of the
criminal proceedings, or whether its interim
custody can be entrusted to its registered
owner upon imposition of appropriate
conditions and safeguards.
13. The law relating to interim custody and
release of seized property is well settled. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2002)
10 SCC 283, has emphasized that vehicles
and other articles seized during investigation
should not ordinarily be permitted to remain
unattended in police stations for prolonged
periods, as such articles deteriorate with the
passage of time and lose their utility and
value. The purpose of seizure is to preserve
the property for the purposes of investigation
and trial and not to allow it to be wasted,
damaged or rendered useless by prolonged
exposure and neglect. Where the identity
and condition of the property can be
properly preserved by preparing an inventory
UKHC010083832026
2026:UHC:7798
and taking photographs or videography, its
interim release in favour of the person
entitled to possession can be considered by
imposing appropriate conditions.
14. It is also well settled that the mere
seizure of a vehicle in connection with an
offence under the N.D.P.S. Act does not
necessarily require that the vehicle must
remain in the custody of the police
throughout the pendency of the trial. The
question of confiscation is ultimately
required to be determined by the competent
court in accordance with the statutory
provisions and on the basis of the evidence
adduced during the proceedings. Interim
release of the vehicle, subject to appropriate
safeguards, does not amount to a final
adjudication of the rights of the parties or of
the question of confiscation.
15. In the present case, the petitioner is the
registered owner of the vehicle. The vehicle
has remained in police custody for a
considerable period and is stated to be lying
in the open premises of the police station.
Continued retention of the vehicle in such
circumstances would serve no useful
purpose, particularly when its identity and
evidentiary value can adequately be secured
by preparation of a detailed inventory and by
taking photographs and videography thereof.
The apprehension expressed by the State
can adequately be addressed by imposing
stringent conditions upon the petitioner
while granting interim custody of the vehicle.
The petitioner can be directed not to transfer
or alienate the vehicle and to produce the
same before the trial Court or the
Investigating Agency as and when required.
UKHC010083832026
2026:UHC:7798
16. This Court is, therefore, of the
considered view that the learned court below
failed to properly appreciate the settled
principles governing interim custody of
seized vehicles and that the impugned order,
in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, warrants interference.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 15.04.2026,
passed by the learned Special Judge,
N.D.P.S. Act/1st Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Vehicle Release
Application No. 34 of 2026, is hereby set
aside. The learned court below shall release
the seized vehicle, namely, Scorpio bearing
Registration No. UK-18G-7100, in favour of
the petitioner, being its registered owner, on
his furnishing a personal bond and two
reliable sureties, to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court, subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not sell, transfer,
alienate, mortgage or otherwise create any
third-party interest in respect of the vehicle
during the pendency of the criminal
proceedings without prior permission of the
competent Court;
(ii) The petitioner shall not alter, change or
tamper with the registration number, engine
number, chassis number or any other
identifying feature of the vehicle;
(iii) The petitioner shall keep the vehicle in
proper condition and shall produce the same
before the learned trial Court, Investigating
Officer or any other competent authority as
and when directed;
(iv) The petitioner shall furnish an
undertaking that he shall not permit the
vehicle to be used for any unlawful purpose
and shall ensure that the vehicle is not used in
the commission of any offence;
UKHC010083832026
2026:UHC:7798
(v) The petitioner shall abide by any further
condition which may be considered necessary
by the learned trial Court for securing the
production and identity of the vehicle.
17. Before releasing the vehicle, the
Investigating Officer shall prepare a detailed
inventory describing the vehicle and its
present condition and shall specifically record
its registration number, engine number,
chassis number and other relevant identifying
particulars. Coloured photographs and, if
considered necessary, videography of the
vehicle shall also be taken and placed on
record.
18. The release of the vehicle shall be purely
by way of interim custody and shall not create
any equity in favour of the petitioner or affect
the rights of the prosecution. It is further
clarified that the interim release of the vehicle
shall remain subject to the final outcome of
the criminal proceedings and to any order
regarding confiscation or disposal of the
vehicle that may ultimately be passed by the
competent Court in accordance with law.
19. It is made clear that the observations
made hereinabove are confined only to the
adjudication of the present petition relating to
interim release of the seized vehicle and shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion
on the merits of the criminal case, which shall
be decided independently by the competent
Court in accordance with law.
20. With above observations and directions,
the criminal petition is allowed.
21. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of accordingly.
MAMT
A
RANI
Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f
3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d6
7ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9ca
bfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd266
90a191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.09.01 17:13:16
+05'30'
(Alok Mahra, J.)
31-08-2026
Mamta