A. Ramar vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Panagudi

Court
Madras High Court

CRL OP(MD) No. 24318 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CRL OP(MD) No. 24318 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011501842026}
A. Ramar
S/o. Athangaraiyan,
No.3/34,
Vasavappapuram,
Ambethkar Nagar,
Seydunganallur,
Srivaikuntam Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
State Of Tamilnadu,
Rep., by the Inspector Of Police,
Panagudi Police Station,
Tirunelveli District,
Crime No.1042/2026.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Petition filed under section Petition u/s 528 of BNSS C-
45S.To set aside the Returned docket order dated 28.07.2026 in
Crl.MP.Sr No. 4484 of 2026 in Crime No. 1042 of 2026 and issue
direction directing the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vallioor, to take up
the Crl.MP.Sr No. 4484 of 2026 in Crime No. 1042.
For Petitioner(s) :Mr.S.Anbuchezhian
For Respondent(s) :Mr.B.Arun
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
__________
Page  1  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:08:40 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 24318 of 2026
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the Returned
Docket Order dated 28.07.2026 in Crl.M.P.SR.No.4484 of 2026 in
Cr.No.1042 of 2026, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Vallioor.
2. The petitioner’s son is accused in Cr.No.1042 of 2026, wherein
he is alleged to have committed offences under the NDPS Act. The
petitioner herein who is admittedly the owner of the two wheeler had
filed an application for return of the Bajaj Pulsar two wheeler bearing
Reg.No.TN 92 J 5247.
3. The said application has been returned pursuant to the interim
order on the ground that, in view of Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act, the
Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for the return of
property in respect of vehicles involved in NDPS cases. Aggrieved by the
said order of return, the present petition has been filed.
__________
Page  2  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:08:40 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 24318 of 2026
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act, only deals with the disposal of seized
narcotic drugs and substances and it has nothing to do with the return of
the vehicles involved in the alleged offence.
5. He further submitted that the petitioner is not an accused and his
son is alleged to have used the said vehicle in transporting the narcotics.
6. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Deanash vs. The State of Tamil Nadu , reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 2276 in support of his contentions.
7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side),
appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that he placed reliance
on the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage,
Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. He specifically referred to Chapter
IV thereof, which deals with the disposal of contraband substances as
well as conveyances. In this regard, he relied upon Rules 16, 18, 19, 21,
22 and 23(5)(e).
__________
Page  3  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:08:40 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 24318 of 2026
8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing
for the respondent further submitted that the vehicle is in the custody of
the Drug Disposal Committee and that, in such circumstances, the learned
Trial Judge was justified in returning the application seeking interim
release of the vehicle.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
perused the material records of the case.
10. Admittedly, the present petitioner herein is not an accused in
Cr.No.1042 of 2026. His son is said to have used the two-wheeler
belonging to the petitioner for conveyance of contraband.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision dated 03.03.2025
between Tarun Kumar Majhi vs. The State of West Bengal , in
Spl.Crl.No.17081 of 2024 in paragraph 12 and 13 has held as follows:-
“12. It is settled law 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
__________
Page  4  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:08:40 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 24318 of 2026
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.
13. Recently this Court in Bishwajit Dey vs. The State of
th
Assam, Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2025 dated 7 January,
2025 has held that there is no specific bar / restriction under
the NDPS Act for release in the interim of any seized
vehicle.”
12. The Honble Supreme Court in a decision in Deanash vs. The
State of Tamil Nadu , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2276, in
paragraph 29 and 30 has held as follows:-
“29. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that
the Rules of 2022 cannot be interpreted as divesting the
Special Courts of their jurisdiction to entertain an
application for interim custody or release of a seized
conveyance under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.PC
(Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS). The authority of the
Special Court to pass appropriate orders for interim
custody during the pendency of the trial, as well as to
make final determination upon its conclusion, continues to
operate independently of the disposal mechanism
envisaged under the said Rules. Any interpretation to the
contrary would lead to anomalous and unjust
consequences by depriving a bona fide owner of his
property without judicial scrutiny or an opportunity of
hearing, an outcome wholly inconsistent with the statutory
scheme of the NDPS Act and contrary to the fundamental
principles of natural justice.
__________
Page  5  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:08:40 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 24318 of 2026
30. Hence, we are of the considered view that the
interpretation given by the High Court, holding that
pursuant to the promulgation of the Rules of 2022, all
other forums, including the Special Court, are divested of
the jurisdiction to decide the fate of a seized conveyance
under the NDPS Act and that the aggrieved person must
necessarily approach the Drug Disposal Committee, is
unsustainable in the eyes of law.”
13. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited
supra, it is clear that neither the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, nor
Section 52A of the NDPS Act can be interpreted as divesting the Special
Court of its jurisdiction to entertain an application for interim release of a
seized vehicle.
14. That apart, the question of confiscation and sale of the vehicle
by public auction by the Drug Disposal Committee can arise only after
the question of the trial when the accused is convicted or discharged.
15. That apart, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further pointed out
that the authority of the Special Court to pass appropriate orders for
interim custody during the dependency of the trial is independent of the
disposal mechanism envisaged under the 2022 Rules.
__________
Page  6  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:08:40 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 24318 of 2026
16. In such view of the matter, the impugned Returned Docket
Order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. The learned
Trial Judge is directed to number the said application and dispose of the
same on merits and in accordance with law in the light of the decisions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra.
17. Accordingly, the criminal original petition stands allowed.
Registry is directed to return the original impugned order.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
rgm
__________
Page  7  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:08:40 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 24318 of 2026
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Panagudi Police Station,
Tirunelveli District,
Crime No.1042/2026.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
__________
Page  8  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:08:40 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 24318 of 2026
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
rgm
CRL OP(MD) No. 24318 of 2026
28-10-2026
__________
Page  9  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:08:40 am )