Post-trial vehicle release may be sought from the trial court under Section 452 CrPC.

The petitioner sought a direction for release of her Honda motorcycle, seized in Ram Nagar P.S. Case No. 298 of 2023, registered under Sections 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act

The Trial Court had earlier rejected her release application, observing that contraband had allegedly been thrown from the motorcycle and that the vehicle was an exhibit in the trial

The NDPS trial subsequently concluded; the petitioner was not an accused, while her husband was convicted. No confiscation order concerning the motorcycle was passed, and the Trial Court did not order its delivery to the petitioner

The petitioner then sought relief before the High Court

1. Whether the petitioner could seek release of the motorcycle from the High Court when the NDPS trial had concluded but the Trial Court had made no delivery or confiscation order

2. Whether the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy before the Trial Court for delivery of the motorcycle

Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act provides for liability to confiscation of a conveyance used to carry narcotic or psychotropic substances, subject to the statutory exception where the owner proves that the use occurred without the knowledge or connivance of the owner, agent and person in charge, and that reasonable precautions were taken

Section 452 CrPC, corresponding to Section 498 BNSS, empowers the criminal court, upon conclusion of an inquiry or trial, to make orders for disposal, confiscation or delivery of property produced before it or in its custody, including delivery to a person claiming entitlement to possession

The Court treated an application to the Trial Court under this provision as the petitioner’s efficacious alternative remedy

The High Court noted that the trial had concluded and that no confiscation order had been made, but the Trial Court had also not directed delivery of the motorcycle to the petitioner

Because Section 452 CrPC/Section 498 BNSS authorises the trial court to decide the disposal or delivery of property at the conclusion of trial, the Court considered that the petitioner could seek the motorcycle’s release through a miscellaneous application before that court

It therefore did not determine the petitioner’s entitlement to the motorcycle on the merits.

No direction for immediate release was issued.