An NDPS-seized vehicle may be released to an uninvolved owner pending trial and possible confiscation.

A truck bearing registration No. TR-04-D-1758 was seized in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 15 of 2026.

The prosecution had sought confiscation of the vehicle.

Respondent No. 1, Smt. Gopa Debnath Roy, claiming to be its owner, applied before the Special Judge for release of the vehicle.

The Special Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala, released the vehicle to her on bail by order dated 22 April 2026, notwithstanding the prosecution’s alleged claim regarding confiscation.

The vehicle’s driver, respondent No. 2, Jakir Hussain, was alleged to have been involved in the offence and was absconding; the owner was not arrayed as an accused.

The Union of India challenged the release order before the High Court under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, corresponding to Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC.

Whether the Special Judge acted illegally or improperly in releasing the seized vehicle to its alleged owner during the pendency of the NDPS trial.

Whether the possibility of confiscation of the vehicle under Section 63 of the NDPS Act required the release order to be set aside.

Whether the owner’s status as a non-accused, and the absence of material showing her knowledge of or complicity in the alleged offence, justified interim custody of the vehicle.

The Court exercised revisional jurisdiction under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, corresponding to Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC.

Section 63 of the NDPS Act permits consideration of confiscation of the vehicle upon conclusion of the trial; the pendency of possible confiscation does not, by itself, preclude interim release subject to appropriate safeguards.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2002 Legal Eagle (SC) 840, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not ordinarily remain at police stations for prolonged periods and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to production when required.

The Court also relied on Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2276, which recognised that a vehicle may be released to its bona fide owner where the owner was not arraigned as an accused and there was no material indicating knowledge of or connivance in the transport of contraband.

The High Court found that the Union of India could not demonstrate that a specific objection had been raised before the Special Judge that the vehicle was indispensable for trial or confiscation purposes.

Although Section 63 of the NDPS Act preserved the possibility of confiscation after trial, the Special Judge had released the vehicle subject to terms and conditions, thereby protecting the prosecution’s ability to secure its production when required.

The Court further noted that respondent No. 1 was not an accused and that the Union of India produced no material showing that she knew of, or connived in, the alleged offence committed by the absconding driver.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and Denash, the Court held that interim release to the owner was not illegal or improper.

The prosecution’s relied-upon precedent was treated as factually distinguishable.

The criminal revision petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

The owner was directed not to change the nature or features of the vehicle until conclusion of the trial and to produce it before the Trial Court whenever required.

The record was directed to be sent back to the Trial Court, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.