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

The Supreme Court today outlined four distinct scenarios that arise in cases involving the seizure of vehicles used to transport narcotic substances, as punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).

The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan answered the possible fallouts of those scenarios i.e., whether there would be an interim release of the seized vehicles or not.

The four types of scenarios are:

Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substances is recovered.

Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner.

Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle.

Fourthly, where the contraband is seized/recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner's knowledge and connivance.

“In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused.”, the Court answered.

“This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused-owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated.”, the court added.

Moreover, the Court clarified that “the aforesaid discussion should not be taken as laying down a rigid formula as it will be open to the trial Courts to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant.”

The Court observed that if the argument that every vehice used to carry contraband must be seized is accepted, it can lead to absurd results.

"If the respondent-State's interpretation is accepted, then in a case where an accused is arrested carrying heroin in a private plane or a private bus or a private ship without the knowledge and consent of the management and staff of the private plan or bus or ship, the plane/bus/ship would have to be seized till the trial is over!"

Background

The Court 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.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Manmohan held that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) doesn't prohibit the interim release of vehicles that are seized for allegedly transporting contraband. The Court added that the seized vehicle can be released under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C.

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

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