Uttarakhand High Court
Rishabh Butola vs State Of Uttarakhand on 5 August, 2026
UKHC010129302026
2026:UHC:6924
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
CRLR/561/2026
Rishabh Butola ..........Revisionist
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand .........Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Amit Tyagi and Mr. Gaurav
Nagpal, learned counsel for the revisionist.
2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned A.G.A.
along with Mr. Jai Prakash Kandpal,
learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. Present criminal revision has been
filed against the order dated 06.05.2026
passed by learned Special Judge N.D.P.S.
Act/1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun in
Misc. Criminal Case No.232 of 2026
(S.S.T. No.22 of 2025) , whereby the
application filed by the revisionsit to
release of the seized vehicle in favour of
the revisionist has been dismissed by the
said court.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
would submit that the revisionist is the
registered owner of the vehicle in question,
namely, Scooty bearing Registration No.
UK-12 G-1215; that, an F.I.R. dated
16.09.2025 was lodged at Police Station
Raipur, District Dehradun, under Sections
8/20/29/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; that,
according to the prosecution case, on
16.09.2025, while the police party was on
routine patrolling duty, the aforesaid
scooty, allegedly being driven by the
UKHC010129302026
2026:UHC:6924
revisionist with a co-accused as pillion
rider, was intercepted. It is alleged that
they were apprehended and, upon search,
contraband (charas) was allegedly
recovered from their possession; that,
consequently, the revisionist was arrested,
sent to judicial custody and the aforesaid
scooty was seized by the Investigating
Officer in connection with the said case.
5. Learned counsel further submits that
the revisionist has already been enlarged
on regular bail by this Court vide order
dated 06.04.2026; that, however, despite
the grant of bail, the seized vehicle
continues to remain parked in the
premises of Police Station Raipur, District
Dehradun, exposed to sun, rain and other
vagaries of nature without any proper
maintenance; that, continued retention of
the vehicle in such conditions would
inevitably result in its deterioration in
value and mechanical damage, therefore,
in these circumstances, the revisionist
moved an application under the relevant
provisions of law before the learned
Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act/1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Dehradun, registered as
Misc. Criminal Case No. 232 of 2026
(S.S.T. No. 22 of 2025), seeking interim
release (supurdgi) of the seized vehicle,
however, the said came to be rejected by
the learned trial Court vide the impugned
order dated 06.05.2026. Hence, this
revision.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
would further submit that the impugned
order is wholly unsustainable in law and
has been passed without proper
appreciation of the statutory provisions
governing confiscation of property under
the N.D.P.S. Act; that, the Sections 60 and
63 of the N.D.P.S. Act contemplate
confiscation of a vehicle only upon
UKHC010129302026
2026:UHC:6924
adjudication by the competent Court after
conclusion of the trial and recording of
requisite findings; that, mere seizure of a
vehicle during investigation does not
automatically disentitle the registered
owner from seeking its interim custody;
that, the learned trial Court has
erroneously proceeded on the assumption
that release of the vehicle would frustrate
the proceedings for confiscation, whereas
the question of confiscation can be
determined only after culmination of the
trial.
7. Learned counsel further submits that
the impugned order is contrary to the
settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC
283, wherein it has been categorically held
that no useful purpose is served by
allowing seized vehicles to remain
stationed in police premises for an
indefinite period, as such vehicles
invariably deteriorate with the passage of
time. The Hon’ble Apex Court has
emphasized that criminal courts should
ordinarily release seized vehicles to their
rightful owners on appropriate terms and
conditions so as to preserve their value
and utility.
8. He would further submit that the
issue is no longer res integra in view of the
recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam,
2025 (1) RCR (Criminal) 486, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has authoritatively
held that there exists no express statutory
prohibition under the N.D.P.S. Act against
interim release of a seized vehicle pending
trial and that the criminal court possesses
ample jurisdiction to release such vehicle
in exercise of its powers, subject to
appropriate safeguards ensuring its
UKHC010129302026
2026:UHC:6924
production whenever required during the
proceedings.
9. Learned counsel also submits that
the learned trial Court has failed to
consider the aforesaid binding precedents
and has also overlooked the practical
reality that the vehicle is continuously
lying in an open space within the police
station premises, thereby being subjected
to corrosion and depreciation. It is argued
that if the vehicle is permitted to remain in
such condition till conclusion of the trial,
which may take considerable time, it
would be rendered virtually unusable,
thereby causing irreparable financial loss
to the revisionist. It is, therefore, prayed
that the vehicle be released in favour of
the revisionist on such terms and
conditions as this Court may deem fit and
proper to impose.
10. Per contra, learned State counsel
opposed the submissions advanced on
behalf of the revisionist and supported the
impugned order. However, he fairly did not
dispute the legal principles enunciated by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid decisions regarding interim
release of seized vehicles.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record.
12. It is not disputed that the revisionist is
the registered owner of the vehicle in
question. It is also undisputed that the
vehicle has remained in the custody of the
police since its seizure and is lying in the
open premises of the police station. The
revisionist has already been enlarged on
regular bail and there is nothing on record
to indicate that release of the vehicle on
appropriate terms would prejudice the
prosecution case or adversely affect the
UKHC010129302026
2026:UHC:6924
trial.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) has
categorically held that seized vehicles
should not be permitted to remain parked
in police stations for long periods as they
lose their value and utility. The same
principle has recently been reiterated in
Bishwajit Dey (supra), wherein it has been
held that there is no statutory embargo
under the N.D.P.S. Act against interim
release of a seized vehicle pending trial
and that such release can be granted
subject to suitable safeguards.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the
present case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned trial
Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction
vested in it in accordance with the settled
principles of law and rejected the
application on considerations which are
legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the
impugned order warrants interference in
exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of
this Court.
15. Accordingly, the order dated
06.05.2026 passed by the learned Special
Judge, N.D.P.S. Act/1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Misc.
Criminal Case No. 232 of 2026 (S.S.T. No.
22 of 2025) is hereby set aside. The
learned trial Court is directed to release
the seized Scooty bearing Registration No.
UK-12 G-1215 in favour of the revisionist,
being its registered owner, on his
furnishing a personal bond and two
reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the
trial Court, subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The revisionist shall not transfer,
alienate, create any third-party interest
or alter the identity of the vehicle
during the pendency of the trial
UKHC0101293020262026:UHC:6924
without prior permission of the trial
Court.
(ii) The revisionist shall produce the
vehicle before the trial Court or the
Investigating Agency as and when
directed.
16. It is made clear that before release,
the Investigating Officer shall prepare a
detailed inventory of the vehicle,
mentioning its registration number,
engine number, chassis number and
present condition, and shall also take
coloured photographs/videography
thereof, which shall form part of the
judicial record. The release of the vehicle
shall remain subject to the final order
regarding confiscation, if any, to be passed
by the competent Court in accordance
with law after conclusion of the trial.
17. With above observations and
directions, the criminal revision is allowed.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
05-08-2026
MA
Mamta Digitally signed by MAMTA
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
MTA
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f
244f3e584af1449e430ef900
bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b
, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1
RANI
d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8
b66dd26690a191648ab5d8
dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.08.05 17:48:27
+05’30’
