Courts may grant interim custody of seized vehicles to registered owners, subject to safeguards and confiscation.

The petitioner claimed to be the registered owner of a Yamaha Ray ZR two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-58-BR-5348, which was seized by the Nagamalai Pudukottai Police in Crime No.16 of 2026 in connection with the alleged possession and transportation of two kilograms of ganja.

The case was registered under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The petitioner was not shown as an accused and contended that his friend had taken the vehicle without his knowledge of the alleged offence; he also asserted that continued retention of the vehicle would cause deterioration and loss of value.

The Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, dismissed the petitioner’s application for interim custody in Crl.M.P.No.803 of 2026 on 29 April 2026.

The petitioner consequently filed the present revision under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the registered owner, who was not an accused in the NDPS case, was entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicle during the pendency of investigation and proceedings?

Whether interim custody could be granted subject to conditions safeguarding the vehicle, the investigation and any future confiscation proceedings under the NDPS Act?

The Court applied the principle that the criminal court has discretionary power to entrust interim custody of seized property to the person it considers entitled to possession, without adjudicating final title, primarily to prevent deterioration and diminution in the property’s value.

Relying on Krishnan Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 INSC 748, the Court reiterated that interim custody is distinct from final determination of ownership or confiscation.

The Court further relied on Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 (3) SCC 241, Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu and Sainaba v. State of Kerala, (2024) 13 SCC 382, and the cited decisions of the Madras High Court, for the principle that release of a seized vehicle may be ordered on appropriate terms, including deposit of money, execution of bonds, production of registration documents, restrictions against alienation or misuse, and an obligation to produce the vehicle when required.

The alleged offences remained governed by Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 25 of the NDPS Act, and the release was expressly made subject to possible confiscation under Sections 60 and 63 of that Act.

The Court noted that the petitioner was the registered owner, was not an accused, and had not been alleged in the FIR to have participated in the offence.

Since the occurrence was dated 11 January 2026 and a substantial part of the investigation was likely to have been completed, continued retention of the vehicle was not considered necessary merely because it had allegedly been used for transporting the contraband.

Applying the principle that seized property should not be allowed to deteriorate in police or court custody, the Court held that the prosecution’s concerns could be addressed through stringent conditions rather than continued detention of the vehicle.

The Court therefore balanced the petitioner’s interest in preserving and using his vehicle against the State’s interest in securing the evidence and preserving its power of confiscation.

Interim custody of the Yamaha Ray ZR bearing Registration No. TN-58-BR-5348 was granted to the petitioner upon proof of ownership, subject to possible confiscation proceedings.

The release was conditioned upon: (i) deposit of ₹15,000 before the Special Court; (ii) execution of a ₹75,000 bond with two sureties; (iii) production of the original registration certificate or prescribed substitute documents; (iv) an undertaking not to use the vehicle for illegal activities; (v) a prohibition against alienation, encumbrance or alteration; (vi) production of the vehicle whenever required by the Trial Court; and (vii) preparation by the Investigating Officer of a detailed panchnama with photographs and videography before handing over custody.

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