A registered owner may obtain interim custody of an NDPS-seized vehicle subject to safeguards.

The petitioner, the registered owner of a TVS Raneon motorcycle, sought its interim return after police seized it in Crime No.273 of 2026.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner’s son, the second accused, possessed 100 grams of ganja, intending to sell it to school-going children, and that the motorcycle was used in connection with the offence.

The petitioner was not an accused and asserted that he had no knowledge of the alleged offence; he also relied on the vehicle’s importance to his livelihood and the risk of deterioration while it remained in open storage.

The Judicial Magistrate declined to release the vehicle, and the petitioner challenged that order in revision.

Whether the petitioner, as the registered owner and a person not arrayed as an accused, was entitled to interim custody of the seized motorcycle.

Whether interim custody could be granted subject to safeguards, including a deposit and conditions protecting the prosecution’s interests and any future confiscation proceedings.

Under the property-custody principles discussed by the Court, a court may entrust interim possession to the person it considers entitled to possession; that determination does not decide title, and interim custody may be granted to prevent deterioration and diminution in the property’s value.

The Court relied on Krishnan Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 INSC 748, and cited Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 (3) SCC 241, and S. Selvaraj v. Inspector of Police, Crl.R.C.(MD) No.374 of 2020, for the power to impose conditions, including a monetary deposit, when granting interim custody.

The underlying prosecution involved Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act; the order preserved the question of confiscation under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act.

The Court noted that the petitioner was not an accused and was the registered owner, while the alleged occurrence had taken place on 21 July 2026 and a substantial part of the investigation might have been completed.

Given the risk of deterioration and loss of value if the motorcycle remained in custody, the Court considered interim release appropriate, while recognising the prosecution’s concerns about possible transfer, alteration or misuse.

It addressed those concerns through conditions—including a deposit, bond and sureties, production of the registration certificate, an undertaking against illegal use, a restriction on alienation or alteration, and an obligation to produce the vehicle when required—along with documentation of the vehicle’s condition before release.

It clarified that the decision concerned interim custody only and expressed no opinion on the merits of the prosecution or ultimate liability for confiscation under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act.

The criminal revision was disposed of accordingly.