Absence of specific bar under NDPS Act allows interim release of seized vehicles under Section 451 CrPC.

The revisionist, Suman Devi, sought the release of her vehicle (Swift Dzire, UP-32-DA-4445) which was seized on 02.09.2025 after 34 kg of cannabis (ganja) was recovered from it during a joint operation by the NCB and STF

The vehicle was occupied by the revisionist's husband and son at the time of seizure

The Special Judge, NDPS Act, Ayodhya, rejected the release application on 06.04.2026, citing the commercial quantity of the contraband and the mandate for disposal via the Drug Disposal Committee under the Mohan Lal (2016) guidelines

The revisionist contended she was the registered owner, had no knowledge of the illegal use, and that the vehicle was deteriorating in open police custody

The Court applied Section 51 of the NDPS Act, which makes the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) applicable to proceedings under the Act unless inconsistent

It relied on Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the interim custody of seized property

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002), which emphasized that vehicles should not be kept in police stations to deteriorate

Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (2025), which clarified that there is no specific bar in the NDPS Act against the interim return of a vehicle to its owner pending trial

NDPS Rules, 2022 (Rule 8-22) regarding disposal by the Drug Disposal Committee under Section 52-A

The Court reasoned that while the Drug Disposal Committee is empowered under Section 52-A and the 2022 Notification to dispose of conveyances, this administrative power does not divest the Special Court of its judicial jurisdiction to grant interim custody

Applying the "four scenarios" test from Bishwajit Dey, the Court noted that while the occupants (husband and son) were accused, the registered owner (the wife) was not arrayed as an accused

The Court observed that keeping the vehicle in the open under the sky serves no purpose and leads to its wastage

It found that the trial court committed a jurisdictional error by assuming that a seizure under Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act created an absolute bar to interim release, especially when legal safeguards like bonds and videography can preserve the vehicle's evidentiary value

The Court directed the release of the vehicle to the revisionist subject to: (i) a personal bond of Rs. 3 lac and a surety of like amount; (ii) an undertaking to produce the vehicle when required; (iii) a prohibition on transferring or altering the vehicle; and (iv) an undertaking that the vehicle shall not be used for future NDPS violations