RAJU SINGHA Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this revisional application challenging the order dated Oct. 6, 2015 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, under N.D.P.S. Act, Malda, in Special Case No.11 of 2015, by which learned Judge of the trial court refused to return the seized vehicle to the petitioner on interim bond during pendency of the criminal case.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the vehicle bearing no.BW-65A/3030 belonging to the petitioner was seized on Feb. 19, 2015 on the allegation of transporting 39 litres of phensedyl without any authority of law. Learned counsel specifically submits that the petitioner is the owner of the said seized vehicle and as such the vehicle should have been returned to the petitioner on interim custody during the pendency of the criminal case on any condition, but learned Judge of the trial court refused to return the seized vehicle to the petitioner on interim custody. He has relied on the decision of this Court in Ainul Haque Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. (CRR 1152 of 2015 decided on Jan. 7, 2015) , in support of his contention that the bar under Sec. 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 will not be attracted in returning the seized vehicle on interim bond during the pendency of the criminal case.

(3.) Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party State submits that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in the criminal case by filing supplementary charge sheet and that the return of the seized vehicle to the petitioner at this stage will be barred under Sec. 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.