Non-accused owners are entitled to interim custody of seized vehicles to prevent deterioration despite pending confiscation proceedings.

On November 10, 2025, police at Basna Station intercepted a vehicle (Registration No. UP 72 BT 3907) and seized 60 kilograms of illegal ganja.

The Applicant, Mohammad Imran, is the registered owner of the vehicle but was not arrayed as an accused; the vehicle was being driven by his brother, Saddam Hussain, and another co-accused.

The Applicant moved an application under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for the release of the vehicle on Supurdnama (interim custody).

The Special Judge (NDPS Court), Saraipali, rejected this application on January 21, 2026.

The Applicant challenged this rejection, arguing that the vehicle was deteriorating in open police custody and that he had no knowledge of the illegal transportation.

1. Whether the seized vehicle, involved in the transportation of commercial quantities of contraband under the NDPS Act, should be released on interim custody to the registered owner pending trial and confiscation proceedings.

The Court primarily applied Section 497 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the CrPC), regarding the custody and disposal of property.

It relied on the principles established in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002), which mandates the expeditious and judicious exercise of power to release seized vehicles to prevent their deterioration.

It further cited Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai v. State of Gujarat (2013), affirming that keeping vehicles in open police stations leads to natural decay.

Finally, it applied Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (2025), which held that a vehicle is not liable for confiscation if the owner proves it was used without their knowledge or connivance.

The Court observed that the Applicant’s ownership of the vehicle was undisputed and that he was not an accused in the underlying criminal case.

The Court reasoned that keeping the vehicle in an open space at the police station would serve no useful purpose and would lead to its eventual destruction due to weather conditions.

Applying the Supreme Court's guidelines, the Court determined that interim custody should be granted to the owner to ensure the vehicle remains functional.

The Court noted that even though confiscation proceedings were pending before the District Magistrate, the judicial precedents regarding the prevention of "natural decay" of property outweighed the necessity of keeping the vehicle in police custody until the conclusion of the trial.

It allowed the Criminal Revision and directed the release of the vehicle (UP 72 BT 3907) to the Applicant on interim custody.

The release was conditioned upon the Applicant furnishing a Supurdnama of ₹10,00,000, one solvent surety of the same amount, and a Bank Guarantee of ₹5,00,000 to the satisfaction of the trial court.