MP HC Releases Owner’s Motorcycle Used by Accused to Carry Doda Chura Against Security While NDPS Case Is Pending

A vehicle registered to the petitioner, Registration No. RJ-28-FS-7537, was seized after it was allegedly used to transport Doda Chura in a case registered under Sections 8 read with Sections 15 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle under Section 457 CrPC was rejected by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Guna, on 13 June 2026.

He challenged that order under Section 528 BNSS, seeking interim custody of the vehicle.

The State opposed the petition but did not dispute that the criminal case against the principal accused remained pending.

The petitioner relied on *Aman v. State of M.P. & Ors.*, W.P. No. 12666 of 2023, concerning release of a vehicle while criminal proceedings were pending.

Section 451 CrPC empowers a court to make appropriate orders for the custody, sale, or disposal of property pending an inquiry or trial.

In *Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat*, (2002) 10 SCC 283, the Supreme Court held that these powers should be exercised promptly and judiciously, including to avoid deterioration or misappropriation of seized property.

In *General Insurance Council v. State of A.P.*, 2010 AIR (SCW) 2967, the Supreme Court highlighted the deterioration and loss of value suffered by vehicles kept in police stations and directed attention to their timely disposal.

The High Court also relied on *Aman v. State of M.P. & Ors.*, W.P. No. 12666 of 2023, which directed release of a vehicle subject to safeguards where criminal proceedings were pending.

The High Court considered that the petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle was not disputed and that the criminal case remained pending.

Keeping the vehicle in police custody for an extended period would serve no useful purpose and would expose it to continuing deterioration from weather, lack of maintenance, and the passage of time.

Applying the principles in *Sunderbhai* and *General Insurance Council*, the Court concluded that the vehicle could be released subject to security and conditions safeguarding its production and preservation.

The Court directed release of vehicle RJ-28-FS-7537 upon proof of ownership and furnishing a cash surety of Rs. 50,000 in the form of a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank or a bank guarantee, together with a Supurdginama of Rs. 50,000, to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/Trial Court.

The petitioner must produce the vehicle when directed, must not alienate it or use it for an unlawful purpose, and must not change its colour or outward appearance.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.