Courts may grant interim custody of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act subject to stringent conditions.

The petitioner was the registered owner of a Yamaha R15 two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-64-Z-3730, which was seized in Crime No.471 of 2024 registered by Koodalpudur Police Station for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959.

The prosecution alleged that the vehicle had been used in connection with the possession and transportation of 1.250 kilograms of ganja. The petitioner was not shown as an accused and asserted that her son, who was Accused No.4, had taken the vehicle without her knowledge.

She sought interim custody on the ground that the vehicle was required for her livelihood and would deteriorate if retained in police custody. The Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, rejected her application for return of the vehicle on 26.08.2025, leading to the present revision.

Whether the registered owner, who was not an accused in the criminal case, was entitled to interim custody of the vehicle seized in connection with an NDPS prosecution?

Whether interim custody could be granted subject to conditions protecting the prosecution’s interests and preserving the vehicle for possible confiscation proceedings?

The Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to interim custody of seized property.

The Court applied the principle that a court dealing with seized property may entrust interim custody to the person it considers entitled to possession, without finally adjudicating title; the purpose is to prevent deterioration and diminution in the property’s 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, Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu, Sainaba v. State of Kerala, and other cited Madras High Court decisions, the Court held that interim custody could be granted on appropriate conditions, including deposit of money, execution of bonds, restrictions on alienation or alteration, production of the vehicle, and preservation of evidence.

The Court also clarified that interim release would remain subject to possible confiscation under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act.

The Court noted that the petitioner was the registered owner and was not an accused, while the alleged occurrence had taken place on 24.08.2024 and the vehicle had remained in custody thereafter. In view of the lapse of time, the Court considered that a substantial part of the investigation might already have been completed and that continued retention of the two-wheeler could cause deterioration and loss of value.

Applying the principle that interim custody is intended to preserve, rather than finally determine, proprietary rights, the Court found no sufficient reason to continue withholding the vehicle from its registered owner.

At the same time, it protected the prosecution by imposing conditions requiring a monetary deposit, a bond with sureties, production of registration documents, an undertaking against illegal use, a prohibition on alienation, encumbrance or alteration, and production of the vehicle whenever required.

The Court further directed preparation of a panchnama, photographs and videography before release, thereby preserving the evidentiary record.

The petitioner was required to: deposit Rs.15,000 before the Special Court, to be placed in an interest-bearing fixed deposit until final judgment; execute a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties for the like sum; produce the original Registration Certificate, or prescribed substitute documents where it was held by a finance company; undertake not to use the vehicle for illegal activities; refrain from alienating, encumbering or altering the vehicle; and produce it before the Trial Court whenever required.

Before release, the Investigating Officer was directed to prepare a detailed panchnama with photographs and videography in the presence of the petitioner and two independent witnesses.

The Court expressly stated that the order concerned only interim custody and did not determine the merits of the prosecution or the ultimate liability for confiscation under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act.