Interim release of vehicle under NDPS Act is mandatory where owner is neither accused nor complicit.

On August 23, 2025, police at P.S. Sarai, District Singrauli, M.P., intercepted a Mahindra Bolero (Vehicle No. M.P.53ZC8816) and seized contraband substances punishable under Sections 8, 21, and 22 of the NDPS Act.

While three individuals (Rajeev Shukla, Rakesh Kumar Sahu, and Ankush Sahu) were arrayed as accused, the applicant, Ram Sajivan Sahu, was not named as an accused in the charge sheet.

The applicant, claiming to be the registered owner, filed for interim custody of the vehicle (Supurdgi), arguing that the vehicle was deteriorating while parked at the police station.

The Special Judge, Singrauli, rejected the application on September 25, 2025.

The applicant subsequently filed this criminal revision challenging the legality of the trial court’s refusal.

Whether the trial court erred in law by refusing the interim release (Supurdgi) of the seized vehicle to its registered owner when the owner was not arrayed as an accused in the NDPS case.

The court primarily relied on the principles established by the Supreme Court in *Denash v. State of T.N.* (2025) and *Bishwajit Dey v. State* (as cited in *Denash*) regarding the interim release of conveyances under the NDPS Act.

These precedents establish a four-scenario framework for vehicle seizure: (1) owner is the possessor, (2) owner’s agent/driver is the possessor, (3) vehicle is stolen, and (4) vehicle is occupied by a third party without the owner’s knowledge.

The core legal rule is that in scenarios where the owner is not arrayed as an accused and there is no allegation of connivance or knowledge, the vehicle should normally be released on *Supurdgi* subject to bonds and conditions.

The High Court observed that while the case technically fell within the "second scenario" (contraband recovered from an agent/driver), a pragmatic rather than mechanical approach was required.

The court noted that the applicant was the lawful owner, was not arraigned as an accused, and the charge sheet contained no material suggesting his knowledge of or connivance in the crime.

Applying the *Denash* precedent, the court found that since there were no allegations against the owner, the trial court's decision to deny custody was erroneous.

The court reasoned that keeping the vehicle at the police station would lead to its spoilage, whereas the interests of justice would be served by releasing it to the owner under strict conditions to ensure its production during trial or confiscation proceedings.

The court held that the applicant is entitled to the interim custody of the vehicle.

It directed the trial court to release the vehicle on *Supurdginama* to the registered owner subject to verification of ownership and the following conditions: (i) a bond of Rs. 12,00,000/- with two solvent sureties of Rs. 2,00,000/- each; (ii) production of video and photographic evidence of the vehicle's condition; (iii) undertakings not to transfer, lease, or alter the vehicle; and (iv) ensuring the vehicle is not used for illegal activities.