NDPS-seized vehicles cannot be disposed of or confiscated before trial concludes.

The petitioner was accused in Crime No. 192 of 2026 under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, concerning 7.770 kg of ganja allegedly found in his two-wheeler, which was seized during investigation.

Before the final report was filed, the Magistrate directed disposal of the vehicle under Rule 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022; the petitioner’s application for interim custody was also dismissed.

The petitioner challenged both orders.

The prosecution stated that no confiscation proceedings had been initiated.

1. Whether the vehicle could be directed to be disposed of before conclusion of the trial and without confiscation proceedings.

2. Whether the petitioner, as the vehicle’s owner and an accused in the NDPS case, could be granted interim custody pending trial.

Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provide the revisional jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner.

Rule 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, was the basis for the Magistrate’s disposal order.

Relying on Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241, and R. Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1739, the Court applied the rule that an NDPS-seized vehicle may be confiscated only after conclusion of the trial; before confiscation, a person claiming rights in the vehicle must be heard.

An owner may avoid confiscation by proving that the vehicle was used without the owner’s knowledge or connivance and despite reasonable precautions.

The Court also relied on Bishwajit Dey for the proposition that interim custody may be granted to an owner who is himself an accused.

The disposal order could not stand because it directed disposal of the vehicle while investigation was pending, before the trial had concluded and without confiscation proceedings having been initiated.

The Supreme Court authorities established that confiscation must await conclusion of the trial, so Rule 17 did not justify the order in these circumstances.

As to interim custody, the petitioner was the vehicle’s owner, and the vehicle had remained idle at the police station since its seizure, risking depreciation in value.

Applying Bishwajit Dey, the Court held that the petitioner’s status as an accused did not bar interim custody, provided appropriate safeguards were imposed.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs.