NDPS vehicle-release denial upheld; prolonged custody warrants expedited investigation and trial.

The petitioner challenged the Sessions Judge’s order rejecting his application under Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for interim release of vehicle No. KA-13-P-2905, seized in connection with Crime No. 41/2026 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

He argued that the vehicle was needed for daily use, was being kept without adequate shelter or maintenance, and could lose value during the proceedings; he also asserted that there was no rival claim to it.

The charge sheet had not yet been filed.

Whether the Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application for interim release of the vehicle seized in the NDPS proceedings.

Whether the petitioner’s concern that the vehicle could deteriorate during the proceedings warranted its release, or could instead be addressed by expediting the investigation and trial.

Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, were invoked in support of the application for release of the vehicle.

The Court accepted the Sessions Judge’s reliance on Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241, and found no error in the resulting refusal to release the vehicle in this case.

It distinguished Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, noting that it concerned offences under the Indian Penal Code rather than an offence under the NDPS Act.

The Court further considered expedition of the investigation and trial an appropriate means of addressing the risk of deterioration while the vehicle remained in police custody.

The Court found no basis to set aside the refusal of interim release because the Sessions Judge had followed Bishwajit Dey, and the Court detected no error in that approach.

It did, however, accept that prolonged proceedings and inadequate maintenance could cause the vehicle to lose value, particularly if the petitioner were ultimately acquitted.

Because the charge sheet had not yet been filed, the Court addressed that concern by directing the police to expedite the investigation and, if the charge sheet were filed, requiring both sides to cooperate in an early disposal of the case.

It directed the police to expedite the investigation and file the appropriate report, and directed the parties to cooperate in the early disposal of the case, with the trial court to give it priority.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the accusation and left all contentions open.