Suman Devi vs U.O.I. Thru. Inspector Narcotics Control Bureau Lko.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 504 of 2026
Suman Devi
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
U.O.I. Thru. Inspector Narcotics Control Bureau
Lko.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Anil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi
AFR
Reserved on 30.04.2026
Pronounced on 24.07.2026

In Chamber
HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Akhilesh Kumar
Awasthi, learned special counsel appearing for Narcotics Control Bureau
and perused the record.
2. Suman Devi, who is the owner of the vehicle Swift Desire car bearing
registration number UP-32-DA-4445 involved in the case registered under
of NCB Crime No. 3 of 2025 under Section 8/20/25/29/60 (3) NDPS Act,
Police Station NCB Gorakhpur, District Ayodhya has filed this criminal
revision with prayer to release the vehicle against impugned order dated
06.04.2026 passed by learned Special Judge NDPS Act/Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Ayodhya in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 544 of 2026 State versus Rajesh Kumar Agrahari and
Others, whereby her application for release of the Swift Desire Car has
been dismissed.
3. According to the complaint filed by the NCB, the NCB team acting on
special information from STF, Ayodhya, intercepted the said vehicle on
02/09/2025 under joint operation of NCB Gorakhpur and STF Ayodhya
and from search of the dicky of the vehicle 34 kg cannabis (ganja) was
recovered. Accused Rajesh Kumar Agrahari and his son Ashish Kumar,
who were found to be involved in transportation of cannabis (ganja) by

CRLR No. 504 of 2026
2
the said vehicle were arrested on 02/09/2025 at 10:35 PM. Arrest and
recovery memo was prepared on the spot. In recovery memo, the said
Swift Desire car 34kg cannabis (ganja) kept in three empty plastic bags;
one memory card showing photograph, the videography of recovery
process is shown to have been taken into possession.
4. During course of investigation, this fact emerged that the revisionist is
registered owner of the car and she is wife of accused Rajesh Kumar
Agrahari and mother of accused Ashish Kumar Agrahari. The recovery
was effected on entry gate of Kaushalpuri Colony, Lucknow Ayodhya
bypass, Ayodhya.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that learned Special
Judge, NDPS Act, Ayodhya has rejected the application for release of the
vehicle on the ground that from the said vehicle 34 kg contraband
cannabis (ganja) was recovered in presence of accused persons who are
husband and son of the revisionist. The said vehicle has been used in
transportation of illegal cannabis (ganja) which has been seized under
Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act and entry of its seizure was made in G.D.
Report No 055 of Police Station-Ayodhya. The quantity of contraband
ganja exceeds minimum commercial quantity and is dangerous to public
health. According to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of
, the contrabands or vehicles
India versus Mohan Lal (2016) 3 SCC 379
seized under NDPS Act are to be disposed of under directions of Drugs
Disposal Committee. There is possibility that in case of release of the
vehicle, it may be again used in transportation of illegal narcotic drugs.
6. He next submitted that specific plea was made by revisionist that she
was not aware of fact that in said vehicle any contraband was being
transported, but learned court below has wrongly dismissed the said plea.
The approach taken by learned court below is erroneous and contrary to
law settled in various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
7. He next submitted that revisionist is not an accused in the case and co-
accused who are husband and son are already released on bail by orders
of this Hon’ble Court. The revisionist is not concerned with the offense
allegedly committed by the accused. In fact, no contraband was recovered

CRLR No. 504 of 2026
3
from the said vehicle and said contraband is wrongly planted by the
complainant. The vehicle is standing in the open in the campus of the
police station due to which its utility and serviceability is deteriorating
day by day as vehicle was seized way back on 02.09.2025. In case the
vehicle is allowed to be detained unnecessarily in the open and under sky,
there is every possibility that it will become junk and rusted out and no
useful purpose of law would be served.
8. Per contra, learned Special Counsel appearing for NCB submitted that
the impugned order is well within bounds of law. The said vehicle of
which the revisionist is registered owner was used in transportation of
commercial quantity of cannabis (ganja) of quantity of 34 kg and the
persons from whose possession the said vehicle and contraband was
recovered are none other than the husband and the son of the revisionist.
Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the revisionist was unaware of the
fact that the said vehicle was misused by her family members in
transportation of contraband.
9. Learned Special Counsel cited NDPS Rules framed by Central Govt.
vide notification dated 23.12.2022 published in Gazette of India
extraordinarily Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) through
G.S.R. 899 (E) - in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 76; read
with Section 52-A; of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985. It provides under Rule 8 that after the seized material under the
Act is forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to
the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act, or if it is seized by
such an officer himself, he shall prepare an inventory of such material in
Form-4 and apply to the Magistrate, at the earliest, under sub-section (2)
of Section 52A of the Act in Form-5.
Rule 9 provides that samples to be drawn in the presence of Magistrate.
Rule 10 provides for Drawing the samples.- (1) One sample, in duplicate,
shall be drawn from each package and container seized.
Chapter IV provides for disposal of seized material including conveyance
used in transportation of contraband goods under the Act.

CRLR No. 504 of 2026
4
10. The action for disposal of said contraband or conveyance will be
initiated by any officer in charge of a police station or any officer
empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act. The empowered officer
shall submit details of the seized material to the Chairman of the Drug
Disposal Committee for a decision by the Committee for the disposal. The
Head of the Department of each Central Drug Law Enforcement Agency
and State Drug Law Enforcement Agency shall constitute on or more
Drug Disposal Committee comprising of three members each which shall
be headed by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police or
Joint Commissioner of Customs and Central Goods and Services Tax,
Joint Director of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence or officers of
equivalent rank. The Committee is empowered to order of disposal of
seized items. In case of conveyance, the Committee shall verify the
engine number, chassis number and other details mentioned in
panchnama and certify the inventory thereof. The Drug Disposal
Committee can order disposal of seized materials up to the quantity or
value indicated in Rule 22 and for conveyances it can order disposal of a
vehicle up to value of Rs.50 lakh. Seized conveyance shall be sold by way
of tender or auction as may be determined by the Drugs Disposal
Committee.
11. Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on a judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in Sainaba versus State of Kerala and another
Criminal Appeal No.2005 of 2022, wherein the Maruti Suzuki Car which
belongs to the appellant lady was seized as it was found to be involved in
a case under Section 20(B) and 29 NDPS Act. The incident occurred on
30.01.2022. The police effected a search of the vehicle in presence of
appellant’s son (accused no.1) and 4.20 of Ganja was recovered from the
bag of the accused no.1 who was travelling in the said car. The Special
Judge dismissed the application for release of the car and endeavour of
the appellant before the High Court also did not succeed as criminal misc.
petition was dismissed on 19.05.2022.
12. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal 2005 of 2022, order dated
12.11.2022, directed
Sainaba versus The State of Kerala and another
release of the vehicle in favour of the with following observations.

CRLR No. 504 of 2026
5
"The appellant has urged inter alia that as per Section 36-C read with
Section 51 of the NDPS Act, Criminal Procedure Code would be
applicable for proceedings by a Special Court under NDPS Act and
Section 451 has an inbuilt provision to impose any specific condition on
the appellant while releasing the vehicle. The appellant is undoubtedly
the registered owner of the vehicle but had not participated in the offence
as alleged by the prosecution nor had knowledge of the alleged
transaction.
Learned counsel seeks to rely on the judgment of this Court in Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat - (2002) 10 SCC 283 opining that it is
no use to keep such seized vehicles at police station for a long period and
it is open to the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by
taking a bond and a guarantee as well as security for return of the said
vehicle, if required at any point of time.
On hearing learned counsel for parties and in the conspectus of the facts
and circumstances of the case, and the legal provisions referred
aforesaid, we are of the view that this is an appropriate case for release
of the vehicle on terms and conditions to be determined by the Special
Court.
The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving parties to bear their own
costs."
13. Learned counsel also placed reliance on a recent judgment of
Bishwajit Dey versus The State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No.87 of
2025 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.13370 of 2024)
directed release of the vehicle with certain conditions in favour of the
appellant in judgment dated 07.01.2025.
14. In aforesaid case the truck of the appellant which purchased for
commercial purpose was seized on 10.04.2023 at a checking point by
police and on search of the vehicle some identical soap boxes containing
suspected heroin, concealed inside the Tarpaulin and kept at the hood of
the vehicle was recovered. The weight of the recovered heroin was found
to be 24.8 grams. The main accused Md. Dimpul was arrested by the
police officer, who according to the appellant boarded the vehicle from

CRLR No. 504 of 2026
6
Manipur as is stated by the driver of the vehicle and he was in possession
of the said substance and was carrying the same. The driver and the helper
of the vehicle were cited as witnesses in the case.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on said case and
the statutory provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. in which
interim disposal of the property seized by the police involved in an
offence is laid down.
16. Reliance was placed in judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sunderbhai Ambala Desai versus State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC
283 wherein it is held, “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. This can be done pending
hearing of applications for return of such vehicles of the proper
Panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared that can
be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during trial
of necessary evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the
property in detail.”
17. Per contra, learned State Counsel placed reliance on statutory
provisions of Sections 52-A 60, 63 of the NDPS Act and judgments of
Hon'ble Apex Court Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2008)
;
16 SCC 417 Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi),
(2020) 10 SCC 120 and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Amit
as well as
Kumar, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6083] Smt. Narender Kaur
vs. Arun Sheoran, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau,
,
2000 SCC OnLine Del 502 Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State
of Punjab and Others, (1999) 5 SCC 670 , Union of India vs. Dinesh

Kumar Verma, (2005) 9 SCC 330, Shajahan vs. Inspector of Excise
and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 3685 and In Re: Moumita Saha,
.
2023, SCC OnLIne Cal 1094
18. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bishwajit Dey versus The State of Assam,
Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2025 (arising out of Special Leave Petition

CRLR No. 504 of 2026
7
considered the submissions of both the parties
(Crl.) No.13370 of 2024)
and aforesaid case laws cited at bar observed in paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35 and 36 which are reproduced as under:
"19. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
examined the issue at hand, this Court finds that different
Courts have taken divergent views with regard to interim
release of conveyances during the pendency of the trial in
NDPS cases. While the courts in cases referred to by learned
counsel for the Respondent-State of Assam have not released
the vehicles in the interim during NDPS trial, yet in General
Insurance Council & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010)
6 SCC 768; Gurbinder Singh @ Shinder vs. State of Punjab,
2016 SCC OnLine P&H 16026; Tej Singh vs. State of
Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 4679; Shams Tavrej vs.
Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine All 1154; Manakram vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. Rev. 2421/2021; Nirmal Singh
vs. State of Punjab, CRR- 1208-2018 (O&M); Kawal Jeet Kaur
vs. State of Karnataka, 2024:KHC- K:5691 and Bhagirath vs.
State of Rajasthan, 2024: RJ-JD:36868, the Courts have
directed release of the vehicles in the interim in NDPS cases.
20. The judgements of this Court are confined to their facts or
in the context of the expression ‘owner’ and do not lay down
any general proposition of law. Consequently, the issue would
have to be examined on first principles.
21. 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

CRLR No. 504 of 2026
8
knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable
precautions against such use of the seized vehicle by the
accused person.
22. 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.
23. 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.
28. 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.
29. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can
take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there
are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from
a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the
person from whom the possession of contraband
drugs/substance 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

CRLR No. 504 of 2026
9
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.
33. In fact, the Supreme Court in similar facts in Sainaba vs.
State of Kerala and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1784 has
held as under:-
“6. The appellant has urged inter alia that as per
Section 36- C read with Section 51 of the NDPS Act,
Criminal Procedure Code would be applicable for
proceedings by a Special Court under NDPS Act
and Section 451 has an inbuilt provision to impose
any specific condition on the appellant while
releasing the vehicle. The appellant is undoubtedly
the registered owner of the vehicle but had not
participated in the offence as alleged by the
prosecution nor had knowledge of the alleged
transaction.
7. Learned counsel seeks to rely on the judgment of
this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of
Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 opining that it is no use
to keep such seized vehicles at police station for a
long period and it is open to the Magistrate to pass
appropriate orders immediately by taking a bond
and a guarantee as well as security for return of the
said vehicle, if required at any point of time.
8. On hearing learned counsel for parties and in the
conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the

CRLR No. 504 of 2026
10
case, and the legal provisions referred aforesaid, we
are of the view that this is an appropriate case for
release of the vehicle on terms and conditions to be
determined by the Special Court.
9. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving parties
to bear their own costs.”
IF THE VEHICLE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS KEPT IN THE
CUSTODY OF POLICE TILL THE TRIAL IS OVER, IT WILL
SERVE NO PURPOSE
34. This Court is also of the view 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. This Court takes
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.
35. 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).
CONCLUSION
36. Consequently, the present Criminal Appeal is allowed with
directions to the trial Court to release the Vehicle in question
in the interim on superdari after preparing a video and still
photographs of the vehicle and after obtaining all
information/documents necessary for identification of the
vehicle, which shall be authenticated by the Investigating
Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the same.
Further, the appellant shall not sell or part with the ownership
of the Vehicle till conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an

CRLR No. 504 of 2026
11
undertaking to the trial court that he shall surrender the
Vehicle within one week of being so directed and/or pay the
value of the Vehicle (determined according to Income Tax law
on the date of its release), if so ultimately directed by the
Court."
19. Aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court was cited with approval
by the Hon'ble Court in a latter judgment
Denash versus the State of
Tamil Nadu, SLP Criminal No.8698 of 2025. This judgment was
delivered on 27.10.2025.
20. In view of above, the present case technically corresponds to the
second scenario as enumerated in para 29 in 3rd or 4th scenario as
enumerated in para 29 of Bishwajit Dey's case (Supra)
21. The peculiar factual matrix of the case warrants more pragmatic
approach regarding prayer of release of the vehicle by the appellant, who
is a woman and registered owner of the vehicle which was allegedly used
by the her husband and son in transportation of contraband (cannabis).
The jurisdiction conferred to Drug Disposal Committee to order disposal
of seized material, including the conveyance involved in transportation of
contraband by Notification dated 23/12/2022 issued under Section 76 read
with Section 52-A of the Act does not create a bar or exclude jurisdiction
of Special Court which has been conferred power to try such type of
cases, to release the vehicle during trial, to the interim custody of the
person entitled to its possession.
22. Considering the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, I hold that the learned trial court has committed legal and
jurisdictional error while dismissing the application for release of the
vehicle filed by the revisionist on aforesaid grounds.
23. In view of foregoing discussion, the revision deserves to be succeed
the impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2026 passed by learned
Special Judge is hereby set aside . The vehicle i.e. Swift Dzire car bearing
Registration Number UP-32-DA-4445 seized in aforesaid offence is
directed to be released on supurdagi (interim custody) of the revisionist
subject to following conditions:-

CRLR No. 504 of 2026
12
1. The trial court shall release the car in favour of the
revisionist being the registered owner upon her executing a
personal bond of Rs.3 lac each, with one surety of like
amount.
2. The owner shall produce the vehicle as per terms and
conditions of the bond before the Court whenever it is
required.
3. She shall not transfer or change the colour or mark of
identification of the vehicle during and until disposal of the
criminal case concerned.
4. The owner shall also undertake that the vehicle shall not be
used in contravention of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act.
In violation of any of these conditions, the trial Court shall be competent
to seize the vehicle again and to direct its safe custody.
Subject to the conditions laid above, the revisionist's request for interim
custody of the vehicle is granted.
24. The revision is allowed .
(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)
July 24, 2026
KR
Digitally signed by :-
RABINDRA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench