Madras High CourtCriminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

Madras HC Orders Scorpio Returned To Registered Owner On ₹30,000 Bank Guarantee In Case Involving 3 Kg Ganja, 755 Kg Banned Tobacco

Ganpatv.The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC Orders Scorpio Returned To Registered Owner On ₹30,000 Bank Guarantee In Case Involving 3 Kg Ganja, 755 Kg Banned Tobacco. Ganpat vs The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police. Madras High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the Special Court’s refusal to release the seized vehicle to its registered owner warranted interference in revision.

The court held

The Court allowed the revision and set aside the Special Court’s order dated 25 September 2026.

It also directed

It directed release of the Mahindra Scorpio to the petitioner forthwith upon his furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹30,000 and executing a bond to produce the vehicle whenever required and not to make any changes or variations to it.

No order as to costs was made.

01Facts

On 3 July 2026, police allegedly found the petitioner and a co-accused in possession of 3 kg of ganja and 755 kg of banned tobacco products in a Mahindra Scorpio registered to the petitioner.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

A case was registered under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, Section 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 7(1) read with 24(1) of the COTPA Act, 2003.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

The petitioner sought interim custody of the vehicle, asserting that he was its owner and that it had been misused by its driver; the Special Court dismissed the application on 25 September 2026.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 2, 4

He challenged that order in revision, relying, inter alia, on Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 5–7

02Issues

i.Whether the Special Court’s refusal to release the seized vehicle to its registered owner warranted interference in revision.

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 15–17

ii.Whether the vehicle could be released pending the criminal proceedings, subject to conditions preserving its availability and condition.

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 13–18

03Law Applied

Section 497 of the BNSS empowers a criminal court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property produced before it during an inquiry or trial; Section 503 provides for a Magistrate’s orders concerning property seized by police but not produced before a criminal court.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 6

Applying Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Court stated that seized vehicles should not be left unused for prolonged periods and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, or security to ensure their production when required.

p. 6 · ¶ 10

The Court also referred to decisions of the Allahabad High Court concerning release of vehicles despite pending confiscation proceedings.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 11–12

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

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

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 123

Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 Section 7Section 24

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497Section 503

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle was undisputed and that neither the State nor another person claimed ownership.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 13, 15

It considered continued storage in an open yard likely to damage the vehicle, serving no useful purpose, and held that the Special Court had not properly exercised its powers under Section 497 of the BNSS.

pp. 7–9 · ¶ 13–16

In light of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and the availability of conditions securing the vehicle’s future production and preservation, the refusal to release it was not sustainable.

pp. 6, 8–9 · ¶ 10, 15–16

05Holding

The Court allowed the revision and set aside the Special Court’s order dated 25 September 2026.

p. 9 · ¶ 17

It directed release of the Mahindra Scorpio to the petitioner forthwith upon his furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹30,000 and executing a bond to produce the vehicle whenever required and not to make any changes or variations to it.

p. 9 · ¶ 18

No order as to costs was made.

p. 9 · ¶ 19
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

GanpatvsThe State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police

Madras High Court · October 27, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment