Courts may grant interim custody of NDPS-seized vehicles subject to safeguards and confiscation proceedings.

The petitioner claimed to be the registered owner of a Yamaha-FZS two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-59-CH-8683, which had been seized by the respondent police in Crime No.183 of 2025 registered under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, concerning the alleged possession and transportation of 3 kilograms of ganja.

The petitioner, who was arrayed as Accused No.2, sought interim custody of the vehicle on the ground that it was required for his livelihood and that continued retention in the open would cause deterioration and loss of value.

The prosecution opposed release, contending that the petitioner had four previous cases and that the vehicle might be alienated, altered, transferred or misused.

The Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, dismissed the custody application in Crl.M.P.No.618 of 2026 on 30 March 2026, leading to the present revision.

Whether the petitioner, being the registered owner and an accused in the NDPS case, was entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicle during the pendency of investigation and proceedings.

Whether interim release could be granted subject to appropriate safeguards, including deposit, security, production of the vehicle and its liability to confiscation under the NDPS Act.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to examine the order refusing custody of the seized property.

It applied the principle that the criminal court has discretion to entrust interim custody of seized property to the person it considers entitled to possession; such proceedings do not finally determine title but are intended to prevent the property from decaying or diminishing in value, as recognised in Krishnan Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 INSC 748.

Relying on Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 (3) SCC 241, and the decisions in S. Selvaraj v. Inspector of Police and other cases, the Court held that interim custody may be granted on stringent conditions, including deposit of money.

The Court also relied on Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu and Sainaba v. State of Kerala, (2024) 13 SCC 382, while recognising that release of the vehicle would remain subject to confiscation proceedings under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act.

The Court noted that the occurrence was alleged to have taken place on 8 August 2025 and that, given the passage of time, a substantial part of the investigation was likely to have been completed.

Although the vehicle was allegedly used in connection with the possession and transportation of ganja and the petitioner was an accused, continued retention of the two-wheeler was not considered necessary merely to preserve the prosecution case.

Applying the principle that seized vehicles should not unnecessarily deteriorate while in police custody, the Court held that interim custody could be entrusted to the registered owner with safeguards addressing the prosecution’s concerns.

These safeguards included a monetary deposit, bond and sureties, production of the registration certificate, an undertaking against illegal use, a prohibition on alienation or alteration, and an obligation to produce the vehicle before the trial court whenever required.

The Court further protected evidentiary interests by directing the Investigating Officer to prepare a detailed panchnama, photographs and videography before release.

Interim custody of the Yamaha-FZS bearing Registration No. TN-59-CH-8683 was ordered to be given to the petitioner upon proof of ownership, subject to confiscation proceedings and the following conditions: deposit of Rs.20,000 in an interest-bearing fixed deposit; execution of a Rs.25,000 bond with two sureties; production of the original registration certificate or prescribed alternative documents; an undertaking against future illegal use; no alienation, encumbrance or alteration; production of the vehicle whenever directed by the trial court; and preparation of a panchnama with photographs and videography before release.

The Court clarified that the order concerned only interim custody and expressed no opinion on the merits of the prosecution or the ultimate question of confiscation under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act.