A vehicle seized in an NDPS case must be released to a non-accused owner absent confiscation proceedings.

Two persons, Dharmendra Yadav and Sumant Kumar, were apprehended while travelling in the petitioner’s vehicle bearing Registration No. BR-34P-4424, and 260 grams of heroin-like substance was recovered from them.

The case was registered as NCB Case No. NCB/PZU/V/09/2023, corresponding to NDPS Case No. 27 of 2023.

During investigation, neither the petitioner, who owned the vehicle, nor his driver was found involved in transporting the contraband, and neither was made an accused.

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle, but the application was rejected by the Special Judge, NDPS, Begusarai, on 16 October 2024, principally on the ground that the vehicle had been used for transporting contraband.

The petitioner challenged that order in revision.

The High Court also condoned a delay of 104 days in filing the revision.

Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released during the pendency of the NDPS proceedings when the vehicle was used by other persons for transporting contraband, but neither the petitioner nor his driver was made an accused or found involved in the offence?

Whether the continued retention of the seized vehicle was justified in the absence of reasons demonstrating its necessity for the trial or any pending confiscation proceeding?

The Court applied the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, that seized vehicles should not be kept in police or court custody for an unnecessarily long period because deterioration of case property results in a loss of national resources.

Courts should ordinarily pass appropriate orders for interim release upon obtaining adequate bonds, guarantees or security for production of the vehicle whenever required; photographs and a detailed panchnama should also be prepared before release.

The Court further applied the principle that continued custody of a vehicle must be supported by reasons showing why it is required during the trial, subject to appropriate conditions securing its production.

The High Court found that the petitioner and his driver had not been implicated after investigation and that the record did not establish the petitioner’s involvement in the transportation of contraband or any regular use of the vehicle for such purpose.

Although the NCB argued that the vehicle had been used for transporting a commercial quantity of contraband, the mere use of the petitioner’s vehicle by the apprehended persons did not, by itself, justify its indefinite retention, particularly when the owner and driver were not accused.

Applying Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the Court held that the trial court had failed to explain why the vehicle was required to remain in custody or why it was necessary for the trial.

The petitioner’s undertaking to produce the vehicle whenever required, together with ownership documents and security equivalent to the vehicle’s current Insured Declared Value, adequately protected the interests of the proceedings.

The vehicle bearing Registration No. BR-34P-4424 was directed to be released, provided that no confiscation proceeding had been initiated, upon production of ownership documents and furnishing a security bond or indemnity bond—not a bank guarantee—equal to the vehicle’s current Insured Declared Value, to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

The petitioner was required to undertake in writing that he would neither alienate nor transfer or sell the vehicle during the trial and would produce it whenever required by the court.

The trial court was also permitted to impose further appropriate conditions.