Interim Release of Vehicle Seized Under NDPS Act Permissible Despite Statutory Liability for Confiscation

The petitioner, a practicing lawyer and registered owner of a vehicle (Alto-K10, JK02DL-7776), sought the release of his vehicle seized by Police Station Nowshera in connection with FIR No. 80/2025.

The vehicle was seized after the petitioner’s brother, Vikas Kumar Sharma, was caught transporting 10 grams of Heroin in the said vehicle.

The Trial Court (Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri) rejected the application for release on September 1, 2025, primarily because the High Court had stayed the investigation in a separate quashment petition, making it impossible for the Investigating Officer (I.O.) to verify if the owner had knowledge of the crime.

The petitioner challenged this order citing the vehicle's deterioration due to weather exposure.

1. Whether the provisions of the NDPS Act bar the temporary release of a seized vehicle to its registered owner during the pendency of a trial or investigation.

2. Whether a stay on investigation proceedings prevents a court from exercising its jurisdiction to grant interim custody (superdnama) of a seized vehicle.

Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act, which provide that a conveyance is liable for confiscation only if the owner fails to prove it was used without their knowledge or connivance.

Section 497(1) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 CrPC), regarding the court's power to release property pending trial.

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, which mandates that seized property should not be retained longer than necessary.

Manoj Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P., establishing that the power to release a vehicle remains with the Special Court despite administrative disposal notifications.

The Court reasoned that Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act do not impose an absolute bar on the interim release of a vehicle; rather, confiscation is a subject for the final conclusion of the trial.

The Court observed that the petitioner is the registered owner and the brother of the accused, making it plausible that the vehicle was taken without the owner's knowledge of any illegal intent.

The Court critiqued the Trial Court’s refusal based on the "stay of investigation," noting that keeping the vehicle in an open police station subject to "natural decay" serves no purpose for the State and causes "worthless" deterioration of the asset.

The Court emphasized that interim custody on superdnama is a temporary arrangement and does not prejudice the State’s right to confiscate the vehicle later if the owner's knowledge is proven.

The Court directed the SHO/Investigating Officer of PS Nowshera to release the vehicle to the petitioner upon furnishing a superdnama, with conditions that the petitioner shall not dispose of the vehicle, change its appearance, and must produce it whenever required by the court or police.