Karnataka HC Lets Wife Take Back Car Used By Husband When Drugs Were Seized, As She Faced No Allegation—On Bond

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner, who was not accused and against whom no allegation of knowledge or conscious possession was made, was entitled to interim custody of the vehicle allegedly used by her husband to transport or possess contraband.

The court held

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the Sessions Court’s order dated 27 July 2026.

It also directed

It directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner upon her executing a bond for its value and undertaking to produce it when required during trial.

The petitioner was also prohibited from alienating or hypothecating the vehicle, or changing its colour or other features.

01Facts

The petitioner sought interim custody of a Maruti Fronx car registered in her name, after drugs were allegedly seized from the vehicle while it was being used by her husband, Accused No. 1.

¶ 5–6, 10, 13 · p. 3, 4, 6

The petitioner was not an accused, and the Court noted that no allegation had been made that she knowingly possessed or facilitated the transport of the contraband.

¶ 5–6, 10, 13 · p. 3, 4, 6

The Sessions Court had rejected her application under Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relying on Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam. She challenged that order before the High Court.

¶ 2–4 · pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner, who was not accused and against whom no allegation of knowledge or conscious possession was made, was entitled to interim custody of the vehicle allegedly used by her husband to transport or possess contraband.

¶ 5–7, 10, 13 · pp. 3–4, 6

ii.2. Whether the Sessions Court’s refusal to release the vehicle was consistent with the principles in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam.

¶ 4, 11–12 · pp. 2, 4–6

03Law Applied

The Court considered Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning interim custody of property.

¶ 3, 5 · pp. 2–3

It applied Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241, which identifies four broad scenarios for seizure of contraband from a vehicle and holds that, where the owner or agent is not implicated in the charge-sheet—as in cases involving a stolen vehicle or a third-party occupant—the vehicle should normally be released on superdari, subject to appropriate safeguards. Those safeguards may include a bond, an undertaking to produce the vehicle, or payment of its value if confiscation is ultimately ordered.

¶ 11 · pp. 4–5

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

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

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioner was not an accused and that the allegation concerned her husband’s use of the vehicle when the drugs were allegedly seized. There was no allegation that she had conscious possession of the contraband or knew that her husband was using the vehicle to carry it.

¶ 10, 13 · p. 4, 6

Applying the principle in Bishwajit Dey, the Court treated the circumstances as warranting interim release because the petitioner herself was not implicated. It therefore ordered release subject to a bond and conditions preserving the vehicle and ensuring its availability to the Court.

¶ 11–13 · pp. 4–6

05Holding

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the Sessions Court’s order dated 27 July 2026.

¶ 14(i)–(ii) · p. 6

It directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner upon her executing a bond for its value and undertaking to produce it when required during trial.

¶ 14(iii)–(v) · pp. 6–7

The petitioner was also prohibited from alienating or hypothecating the vehicle, or changing its colour or other features.

¶ 14(iii)–(v) · pp. 6–7

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF