NDPS Act | Law Doesn't Sanction Retaining Seized Vehicle Indefinitely Without Furthering Cause Of Justice: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has reiterated that the provisions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act ('NDPS Act') do not mandate indefinite retention of seized vehicles without any justifiable cause, especially when such retention tends to cause degradation and depreciation of the vehicle.

Underlining the importance of interim release of vehicle for preventing structural and economic corrosion, the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed –

“The law does not sanction the indefinite retention of property where its custody ceases to advance the cause of justice. Rather, the established legal principle dictates that seized property should be preserved and safeguarded, not subjected to unnecessary deterioration and waste.”

Case Background

On 30.03.2023, the Phiringia Police Station received reliable information about individuals transporting contraband (ganja) in an auto-rickshaw. The suspected vehicle was intercepted and found to contain 78.7 kg of ganja in 11 carry bags. The contraband was seized along with the vehicle and the case was registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act and the petitioner was arrested.

The petitioner filed a petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Phulbani praying to release the vehicle in his custody pending the trial. However, the trial Court rejected such application citing Section 52-A(1) of the NDPS Act, which mandates pre-trial disposal of vehicles used in narcotics transportation and not interim release in favour of the accused.

High Court's Observations

The Court noted that the trial Court has denied to release the vehicle in the custody of the petitioner citing the bar under Section 52-A(1) of the NDPS Act since the said vehicle was found directly involved in transportation of ganja. Therefore, the core issue before the Court was whether the interim release of the seized vehicle is legally permissible.

In order to answer the aforesaid question, the Court referred to the observations made by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002), wherein it was held as follows –

“In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time.”

Similarly, the Supreme Court recently in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 30 took judicial notice of large number of vehicles in police custody which are stored in open and held that if those are not released during the trial, those will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, their value will only reduce. It had also remarked –

“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.”

Thus, considering the above precedents, Justice Panigrahi held that a consistent line of judicial precedents has reaffirmed that the prolonged retention of seized vehicles in police custody serves no meaningful purpose and results only in their gradual deterioration and depreciation.

“If left unattended indefinitely, the vehicle will inevitably suffer structural degradation, mechanical wear, and a substantial diminution in both its functional utility and economic value, rendering it unfit for future use,” he added.

Resultantly, the Court thought it apposite to release the vehicle in the custody of the petitioner by imposing certain conditions, including deposit of cash security of Rs.3,00,000/-.

Pertinent to mention that in January, a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Rabindra Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 12 held that there is no bar either under the CrPC or the NDPS Act for interim release of vehicles seized for commission of offences under the latter Act and thus, those can be released during the pendency of investigation/trial by putting appropriate conditions.

After perusing Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC read with Section 51 (provisions of the CrPC to apply to seizures) of the NDPS Act and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey (supra), the Court had answered the single judge's reference in the following manner–

1. 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.
2. 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 release of the seized vehicle pending final decision in the criminal case.
3. The Court has the discretion to release the seized vehicle in the interim but the power has to be exercised in accordance with law, in the facts and circumstances in each case.
4. If the Court decides to exercise its discretion to release a vehicle in the during pendency of the criminal case, suitable conditions have to be imposed to ensure its identification and production during trial with an embargo on its sale and / or transfer till conclusion of the trial and for submission of a specific undertaking for production of such vehicle.

Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case No: CRLREV No. 553 of 2024

Date of Judgment: March 13, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Susant Kumar Lenka, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Smt. Jyotsnamayee Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 58

Click Here To Read/Download Order