NDPS Act Doesn't Bar Interim Release Of Seized Vehicle Pending Disposal Of Criminal Case : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (Jan. 7) held that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) doesn't prohibit the interim release of vehicles which are seized for allegedly transporting contraband. The Court added that the seized vehicle can be released under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC.

“This Court is further of the opinion that there is no specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case.”, the court held.

“In the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS Act and in view of Section 51 of NDPS Act, the Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. Consequently, the trial Court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim. However, this power would have to be exercised in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of each case.”, the court added.

The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan was hearing the appeal filed against the Gauhati High Court's decision upholding the trial court's decision refusing to allow interim release of the Appellant's seized truck under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.

The appellant, Bishwajit Dey, owned a truck financed through monthly installments and was his sole source of income. On April 10, 2023, during a routine naka check, 24.8 grams of heroin was found concealed in the truck, leading to the arrest of a main accused, Md. Dimpul, who boarded the vehicle from Manipur. The appellant and the driver claimed ignorance of the contraband's presence stating that neither he nor his driver was aware that the said main accused-Md. Dimpul was in possession of the said substance and was carrying the same.

Placing reliance on the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai V. State of Gujarat (2002), the appellant sought release of the seized vehicle under CrPC, citing hardship due to its prolonged detention and reliance on the truck for livelihood.

Per contra, the State of Assam opposed the Appellant's plea stating that interim release of vehicles might lead to misuse and undermine the objectives of the NDPS Act. It added that vehicles used in drug trafficking are integral to the crime and must be retained for evidence and confiscation.

Upon hearing the parties, the judgment authored by Justice Manmohan set aside the High Court's decision noting that the NDPS Act doesn't prohibit interim release of seized vehicles under CrPC.

The Court cited several precedents such as Sainaba vs. State of Kerala and Another to reject the State's claim that there cannot be an interim release of seized vehicle in the NDPS case.

Seized vehicle not liable to confiscation if the owner can prove that it was used by the accused without the owner's knowledge  

“Upon a reading of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view that the seized vehicles can be confiscated by the trial court only on conclusion of the trial when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. Further, even where the Court is of the view that the vehicle is liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity of hearing to the person who may claim any right to the seized vehicle before passing an order of confiscation. However, the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner's knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the seized vehicle by the accused person.”, the Court observed.

"Undoubtedly, the Vehicle is a critical piece of material evidence that may be required for inspection to substantiate the prosecution's case, yet the said requirement can be met by stipulating conditions while releasing the Vehicle in interim on superdari like videography and still photographs to be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the said inventory as well as restriction on sale/transfer of the Vehicle," the Court observed.

The Court observed that if the Vehicle in the present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. The Court took judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the Vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce.

On the contrary, if the Vehicle in question is released, it would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able to earn his livelihood), to the bank/financier (who would be repaid the loan disbursed by it) and to the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be available for transportation of goods).

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered the truck to be released on superdari (custodial release) subject to certain conditions mentioned in the order below.

Also from the judgment -NDPS Act| When Can Owner Of Vehicle Used To Carry Contraband Be Arrayed As Accused? Supreme Court Explains

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Adeel Ahmed, AOR Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Sabrish Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Ayushi Arora, Adv. Ms. Anupama Gupta, Adv. Ms. Riya Dutta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv. Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Adv. Mr. Piyush Vyas, Adv. Ms. Purvat Wali, Adv. Mr. Aman Sahani, Adv. Ms. Rhea Borkotoky, Adv. Mr. Akash Saxena, Adv. Ms. Ashima Chopra, Adv.

Case Title: BISHWAJIT DEY VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 30

Click here to read/download the judgment