Courts may grant interim custody of an NDPS-seized vehicle to its owner subject to safeguards.

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Kia Sonet bearing Registration No. AP-39-HB-5959, sought interim custody of the vehicle seized in Crime No. 92 of 2026.

The prosecution alleged that 6 kg of ganja had been possessed in the vehicle, leading to registration of offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner was not an accused and claimed that he had lent the vehicle to his friend, arrayed as Accused No. 3; he also asserted that continued storage in the open would cause deterioration and loss of value.

The Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, refused custody on 19 August 2026, and the petitioner challenged that order in revision.

Whether the petitioner, as the vehicle’s registered owner and a person not arrayed as an accused, should be granted interim custody of the vehicle seized in the NDPS case

Whether interim custody could be granted subject to conditions that protect the proceedings and preserve the possibility of confiscation

The NDPS Act provisions invoked in the prosecution were Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1); the Court also expressly reserved the question of ultimate confiscation under Sections 60 and 63.

The Court stated that, when considering interim custody, it determines who should possess the property pending proceedings—not title—and may act to prevent its decay and diminution in value, relying on Krishnan Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 INSC 748.

It also relied on Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 (3) SCC 241, S. Selvaraj v. Inspector of Police, Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 374 of 2020 (17 June 2020), Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 1258, and Sainaba v. State of Kerala, (2024) 13 SCC 382, among other cited decisions, for the court’s power to grant interim vehicle custody on appropriate terms, including deposit of money.

The Court considered that the petitioner claimed ownership, was not an accused, and asserted that the vehicle had been lent to Accused No. 3 without his knowledge of or involvement in the alleged offence.

It also noted the time elapsed since the alleged occurrence and the risk that continued retention in open storage would cause deterioration.

Applying the principles governing interim possession, the Court concluded that custody could be granted on conditions designed to secure the vehicle’s production, prevent its transfer or alteration, and preserve the court’s ability to address confiscation.

The relief was expressly limited to interim custody and did not determine the prosecution’s merits or ultimate confiscation liability.

The petitioner must deposit ₹50,000, execute a ₹50,000 bond with two sureties for like sums, produce the registration certificate or specified substitute documents, undertake not to use the vehicle illegally, refrain from alienating, encumbering or altering it, and produce it when required.

Before release, the Investigating Officer must prepare a detailed panchnama and take photographs and videographs in the petitioner’s and two independent witnesses’ presence.

The order expresses no opinion on the merits of the prosecution or ultimate liability for confiscation under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act.