After Investigation Ends, Chhattisgarh HC Grants Accused Owner Interim Custody Of Kia, iPhone Seized In 5.32g Ganja Case

Police registered an NDPS Act case against the petitioner after allegedly recovering 5.32 grams of cannabis from a vehicle registered in his name.

The vehicle and his Apple iPhone were seized; the petitioner was arrested and later released on bail.

After the investigation was completed and the final report filed, he sought interim custody of both items under Section 503 of the BNSS.

The Magistrate rejected the application, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision, principally because the petitioner was an accused and the contraband had been recovered from his vehicle.

He then challenged those orders before the High Court.

Section 503 of the BNSS empowers a Magistrate to order delivery of seized property to the person entitled to possession, subject to appropriate conditions.

Sections 36-C and 51 of the NDPS Act apply the BNSS procedure to proceedings under that Act insofar as it is not inconsistent with the Act.

Under Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act, a conveyance used to carry contraband may be liable to confiscation, but the trial court determines confiscation in the trial after hearing the claimant; the statutory provisions do not themselves impose a bar on interim release.

In Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241, the Supreme Court held that there is no specific NDPS Act bar to interim release of a seized vehicle, that each case must be assessed on its facts, and that an owner-accused may be a relevant consideration without making the rule inflexible.

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, supports prompt and conditional release of seized property, with safeguards such as bonds, security, panchnamas and photographs, rather than prolonged police-station custody.

The Court treated the petitioner’s status as an accused and the recovery from his vehicle as relevant, but not conclusive against interim custody.

It considered that the alleged quantity—5.32 grams—was substantially below the prescribed small quantity, the petitioner had produced ownership documents, and the investigation was complete, removing the concern that release might impede it.

Continued retention of the vehicle in the open could cause deterioration and financial loss; the evidentiary interests could be protected by recording identifying particulars, preparing panchnamas and photographs, and securing any necessary phone data before release.

The Court therefore found that conditional custody would preserve the prosecution’s interests without prejudging either culpability or eventual confiscation.

It directed interim release of the Kia Seltos and Apple iPhone to the petitioner, subject to a personal bond of ₹7,50,000 with one surety for the like amount and conditions requiring production when directed, verification and documentation of the items, preservation of relevant phone data, restrictions on transfer or alteration, and a prohibition on using the vehicle to commit an offence.

Release was expressly made without prejudice to the trial court’s jurisdiction to determine the criminal case and any eventual confiscation.