Anantnag vs Tehsil & District Samba on 27 July, 2026

    0
    6
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Jammu & Kashmir High Court

    Anantnag vs Tehsil & District Samba on 27 July, 2026

                                                                                    2026:JKLHC-JMU:2322
                                                                   Regular List
    
                                                                  Serial No. 30
    
          HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                          AT JAMMU
    CRM(M) No. 189/2023
    
                                              Date of pronouncement : 27.07.2026
                                                        Uploaded on : 28.07.2026
    Imtiyaz Ahmed Khanday
    S/O Sh. Mohd. Rajab Khanday,
    R/O Masjid, Damjan Ganoora,
    Anantnag, Kashmir
                                                                    .....Petitioner
    
                     Through:-      Mr. Pawan K. Kundal, Sr. Adv. with
                                    Mr. Avnish Baboria, Advocate.
                             V/s
    UT of J&K Th.
    SHO Police Station, Samba,
    Tehsil & District Samba
                                                                  .....Respondent
    
                     Through:-      Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG.
    CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
                                  ORDER (ORAL)

    01. The petitioner, through the medium of this petition, seeks quashment

    of order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the learned Principal Sessions

    SPONSORED

    Judge, Samba, as Special Judge under the NDPS Act, whereby the

    application filed by the petitioner for release of his vehicle bearing

    registration No. JK03C-9848 seized in connection with

    FIR No. 282/2021 registered at Police Station Samba for commission

    of offences punishable under Sections 8, 15 and 29 of the Narcotic

    Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act, 1985, was

    rejected.

    02. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

    is the registered owner of the vehicle and he was not an accused in

    CRM(M) No. 189/2023 Page 1 of 3
    2026:JKLHC-JMU:2322

    the case and that the trial court had rejected the application filed by

    the petitioner not on some sound ground, but on the basis of some

    statements recorded during the investigation of the case by the

    Investigating Officer (I.O.) with regard to change of hands in respect

    of the vehicle, whereas the fact of the matter remains that petitioner

    still continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle having been

    registered in the year 2012 and that he has been paying the

    installments of the bank loans and in this regard, he has drawn the

    attention of this Court to a notice of the Branch Unit Shankerpora of

    J&K Bank dated 02.02.2023, whereby a “Recall Notice” was issued

    in the name of the petitioner by the Bank. He further argued that the

    order passed by the court below be quashed and the vehicle be

    ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner.

    03. Pursuant to the notice, the respondent has filed the status

    report/reply, asserting therein that the vehicle was owned having

    been used in NDPS cases, is liable to be confiscated. As such, the

    trial court has rightly rejected the application. Since the vehicle is

    stated to have changed hands from the petitioner to two other persons

    and the court below has, thus, rightly rejected the plea for release of

    vehicle in the name of the petitioner, even if being a registered

    owner.

    04. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

    05. Though the trial court has observed in its order that the vehicle was

    stated to have been transferred from petitioner, who is registered

    CRM(M) No. 189/2023 Page 2 of 3
    2026:JKLHC-JMU:2322

    owner, to some other persons. However, there is nothing on record,

    as is apparent from the impugned order, to suggest that any of the

    claimants had appeared before the trial court to seek release of the

    vehicle. It was for the trial court to seek the objections, if any, from

    the persons, who were stated to have been transferred the vehicle by

    the registered owner, so as to pass final order in the matter.

    Such a recourse was inevitable in view of the fact that the vehicle

    may be required or proceedings to be carried out for confiscation of

    the vehicle at the time of disposal of the case, as contemplated in

    Section 60 of the NDPS Act, 1985. In such a situation, the order

    dated 15.03.2022 passed by the trial Court is not sustained and is

    liable to be quashed.

    06. Viewed thus, the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is

    remanded back to the trial court for deciding the same after hearing

    all the parties and also summoning those persons as well, who are

    stated to have been transferred the vehicle, so as to release the

    vehicle for the interim custody by imposing sufficient conditions for

    the production of the vehicle at the appropriate stage.

    07. Disposed of along with connected application(s), if any.

    (M A CHOWDHARY)
    JUDGE
    JAMMU
    27.07.2026
    Bunty
    Whether the order is speaking: Yes
    Whether the order is reportable: Yes

    CRM(M) No. 189/2023 Page 3 of 3



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here