Madras HC Gives Owner Interim Custody Of Auto In Alleged 1.15kg Ganja Case, Subject To ₹1 Lakh Bond And Undertaking

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicle and reversal of the Special Court’s dismissal order

The court held

The High Court allowed the revision, reversed the Special Court’s order dated 24 August 2026, and allowed the interim-custody application.

It also directed

Release was conditioned on the petitioner executing a bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, filing photographs of all four sides of the vehicle with the original registration certificate, and furnishing an affidavit undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when directed.

The Special Court was directed to hand over the vehicle only after compliance with these conditions.

01Facts

The petitioner claimed ownership of an APE Auto D3S passengers vehicle seized in connection with a case under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(i) of the NDPS Act, involving 1.150 kg of ganja.

pp. 2–4

He sought interim custody under Sections 497 and 503 BNSS, asserting that he was not an accused and that the vehicle would deteriorate in police custody.

pp. 2–4

The prosecution opposed release, citing the pending investigation and the risk of the vehicle being used again or sold.

pp. 2–4

The Special Court dismissed the application because the vehicle had allegedly been used to smuggle ganja and the investigation was pending.

pp. 2–4

The owner challenged that order in revision.

pp. 2–4

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicle and reversal of the Special Court’s dismissal order

pp. 5–6, 9–11

03Law Applied

Sections 497 and 498 BNSS address custody and disposal of property produced before a criminal court during proceedings and at their conclusion, respectively; Section 503 concerns property seized by police but not produced before a criminal court.

pp. 6–9

Under Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations for long periods, and interim release may be secured by appropriate bonds, guarantees or security.

p. 10

The Court also relied on Selvam v. State by Inspector of Police, which supports considering vehicle-return applications on their merits, and R. Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, which recognises that the analogous BNSS provisions may be invoked in NDPS cases to prevent vehicles from deteriorating in custody.

pp. 10–11

Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 438 Section 442 Section 497 Section 503

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8 Section 20 Section 25 Section 29

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451 Section 452 Section 457

04Reasoning

The Special Court’s reasons—that the vehicle was allegedly used in the offence and that investigation remained pending—did not, by themselves, justify retaining it in custody.

pp. 9–12

Applying the cited authorities, the High Court held that vehicle-release applications should be considered judicially and expeditiously, including in NDPS cases, because prolonged custody risks deterioration.

pp. 9–12

It also noted that no confiscation proceedings had been reported against the vehicle.

pp. 9–12

Interim release could therefore be granted subject to safeguards ensuring the vehicle’s preservation and production when required.

pp. 9–12