Father’s Bike Seized in Son’s NDPS Case: Madras HC Orders Magistrate to Decide Release Plea, Says 2022 Rules Don’t Oust Court’s Jurisdiction

In brief

The question

1. Whether Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the 2022 Rules bars a court from entertaining an application for interim release of a vehicle seized in an NDPS case.

The court held

The Court set aside the returned docket order and directed the Judicial Magistrate, Vallioor, to number the application and dispose of it on its merits and in accordance with law, in light of the cited Supreme Court decisions.

It also directed

The criminal original petition was allowed.

01Facts

The petitioner, whose son was an accused in an NDPS case, claimed ownership of a Bajaj Pulsar seized in connection with the alleged offence and applied for its return.

p. 2 · ¶ 2–3

The Judicial Magistrate, Vallioor, returned the application on the ground that Section 52A of the NDPS Act deprived the court of jurisdiction over the vehicle.

p. 2 · ¶ 2–3

The petitioner challenged that returned docket order, relying on Supreme Court decisions concerning interim release of seized vehicles.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the 2022 Rules bars a court from entertaining an application for interim release of a vehicle seized in an NDPS case.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3–7 · p. 6 · ¶ 13

ii.2. Whether the Magistrate’s returned docket order should be set aside and the petitioner’s application considered on its merits.

p. 2 · ¶ 1 · p. 7 · ¶ 16

03Law Applied

Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, do not divest the competent court of jurisdiction to consider interim custody or release of a seized conveyance.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 12

The Supreme Court in Deanash v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2276, held that the 2022 Rules do not displace the court’s jurisdiction under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC (Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS) to order interim custody.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 12

Tarun Kumar Majhi v. State of West Bengal further states that confiscation is determined at the conclusion of trial, with an opportunity of hearing for a claimant; a vehicle is not liable to confiscation if its owner establishes use without the owner’s knowledge or connivance and that reasonable precautions were taken.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 11

It also records that the NDPS Act contains no specific bar on interim release of a seized vehicle.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 11

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528 Section 497 Section 503

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451 Section 457

04Reasoning

The petitioner was not an accused; his son was alleged to have used the petitioner’s vehicle to transport contraband.

p. 4 · ¶ 10

Applying Deanash, the Court held that neither Section 52A nor the 2022 Rules could justify refusing to entertain the petitioner’s application; the Rules’ disposal mechanism did not displace the court’s independent authority to decide interim custody.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 12–15

The Magistrate therefore could not return the application on the stated jurisdictional ground.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 12–15

The High Court did not determine whether the vehicle should actually be released; it directed that the application be considered on its merits and in accordance with law.

p. 7 · ¶ 16