Interim release of an NDPS vehicle is not a right where the accused is its owner-driver.

During a police nakabandi on 20 November 2025, 26.9 kilograms of poppy husk/straw were allegedly recovered from the bonnet compartment of a Mahindra Thar bearing registration No. PB-09-AK-5000.

The petitioner was the registered owner and was driving the vehicle when the recovery was made; he was arrested and FIR No. 352/2025 was registered under the NDPS Act at Police Station Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar.

The petitioner sought interim release of the vehicle under Section 497 of the BNSS, but the Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, rejected the application on 13 March 2026, holding that the vehicle could again be used for transporting illicit drugs or other criminal activities.

The petitioner challenged that order in revision under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, relying principally on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and a coordinate-bench decision in Rajendra @ Raju v. State of Rajasthan.

Whether a criminal court may grant interim custody of a vehicle seized in an NDPS case under Section 497 of the BNSS, notwithstanding the confiscation provisions contained in Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act?

Whether the petitioner, being both the registered owner and driver of the vehicle from which contraband was allegedly recovered, was entitled to interim release of the vehicle on supurdgi?

Whether the decision in Rajendra @ Raju v. State of Rajasthan required the Court to grant interim custody on allegedly identical facts?

Section 497 of the BNSS confers discretionary jurisdiction on the criminal court to pass appropriate orders for the proper custody of property produced during investigation, inquiry, or trial; it does not create an absolute right in favour of the registered owner.

Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act govern the liability of conveyances to confiscation and the procedure for final confiscation, but do not independently regulate interim custody during the pendency of proceedings.

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, requires courts to avoid keeping vehicles exposed to deterioration at police stations and to consider release on appropriate bonds and safeguards, but does not mandate release in every case.

Under Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241, where the owner himself is the person from whom contraband is recovered, or where the owner’s agent is involved, interim release may ordinarily be declined until the statutory reverse burden is addressed; by contrast, vehicles should normally be released where contraband is recovered from a thief or an unrelated occupant without allegations against the owner.

Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu, SLP (Crl.) No. 8698 of 2025, and Tarun Kumar Majhi v. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No. 1305 of 2025, reaffirm that interim release depends on the facts of each case and that confiscation is a matter for final adjudication after hearing the claimant.

A coordinate-bench decision may be disregarded only where it is per incuriam, including for ignorance of binding statutory provisions or precedent.

The Court held that Section 497 of the BNSS remained available in an NDPS case, since Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act concern final confiscation rather than interim custody.

However, the discretion had to be exercised in light of the petitioner’s specific role.

Unlike cases involving an innocent owner, a stolen vehicle, or an unrelated occupant, the petitioner was both the registered owner and the person driving the vehicle when 26.9 kilograms of poppy husk were allegedly recovered from its bonnet.

The facts therefore fell within the first category identified in Bishwajit Dey, where the owner is himself alleged to have possessed or transported the contraband.

Consequently, ownership, possible depreciation, and the general principle in Sunderbhai could not by themselves justify release.

The Court further found that the possibility of the vehicle’s subsequent use for similar illegal activities was not merely hypothetical in the circumstances and constituted a legitimate consideration for refusing interim custody.

The reliance on Rajendra @ Raju was rejected because that decision did not demonstrate how the owner had established absence of knowledge or consent, and could not override the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

It held that although Section 497 of the BNSS empowers a criminal court to grant interim custody of a vehicle seized in an NDPS case, such release is discretionary and is not an automatic right of the registered owner.

Since the petitioner was the registered owner, driver, and accused in connection with the alleged transportation of contraband, the vehicle was not liable to be released on supurdgi at that stage.

The revision petition challenging the order dated 13 March 2026 was dismissed, and any pending stay application was also disposed of.