Mere Ownership of a Vehicle Facilitating Contraband Transport Without Knowledge or Connivance Justifies NDPS Bail.

The Petitioner, owner of a container truck (Registration No. NL-01-AE-8059), was implicated in Orkel PS Case No. 268 of 2024 for allegedly allowing his vehicle to transport 420 Kgs of contraband Ganja

The Petitioner was neither found in physical possession of the contraband nor apprehended at the spot; he was arrayed as an accused solely on the basis of vehicle ownership

Following a stay/direction in ABLAPL No. 1265 of 2026, the Petitioner voluntarily surrendered before the trial court

He subsequently moved the High Court of Orissa under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail

1. Whether the Petitioner, as the owner of the vehicle used for transporting commercial quantities of contraband, is entitled to bail under the restrictive rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act

Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which mandates that bail for commercial quantities can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offences

Precedent of Biswajit Dey v. The State of Assam (2025 INSC 32), which categorized scenarios of vehicle seizures and held that an owner should not typically be arrayed as an accused if the contraband was transported by third parties without the owner's knowledge or connivance

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s name did not appear in the FIR, and no witnesses provided statements implicating him in the conspiracy or knowledge of the transport

Applying the Biswajit Dey framework, the Court noted that the Petitioner fell into a category where the owner is not necessarily liable unless "knowledge and connivance" are established

The Court found that since there were no criminal antecedents and the Petitioner had voluntarily surrendered, the "negative" burden under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was satisfied

The lack of evidence regarding the Petitioner’s presence at the spot or physical possession of the drugs led the Court to conclude that the conditions for bail were met despite the commercial quantity involved

The bail application was allowed, and the Petitioner was ordered to be released on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court and the Court directed the immediate communication of this order to the concerned jail and trial court via e-mail