Puducherry HC Orders NDPS-Seized Pulsar Returned To Registered Owner, Citing Open-Yard Damage And Requiring ₹25,000 Bank Guarantee

The petitioner sought interim custody of his Pulsar 150 motorcycle, seized in Crime No. 125 of 2026 in connection with offences under Section 8(c), read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B), of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner was not an accused, and his ownership of the vehicle was undisputed.

The Special Judge under the NDPS Act dismissed his application for release.

In revision, the petitioner argued that keeping the motorcycle in an open yard would cause it to deteriorate; the State opposed release on the ground that the vehicle was involved in the alleged offences.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) empowers a criminal court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending inquiry or trial and, where appropriate, its disposal; the provision also requires preparation of a property statement, photographic or video documentation, and a timely order concerning the property.

Section 503 BNSS empowers a Magistrate to order disposal of seized property or its delivery to the person entitled to possession, subject to conditions.

The Court relied on *Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat*, AIR 2003 SC 638, for the principle that seized vehicles should not be left unused in police custody for prolonged periods and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

It also referred to *Nand v. State of U.P.*, *Jai Prakash v. State of U.P.*, and *Kamaljeet Singh v. State of U.P.* in support of release of a vehicle despite pending proceedings concerning confiscation.

The Court considered the petitioner’s undisputed registered ownership, the absence of any competing ownership claim, and the risk that continued storage in an open yard would damage the motorcycle.

It held that retaining the vehicle in those circumstances served no useful purpose and that the Trial Court had not properly exercised its powers under Section 497 BNSS.

Applying *Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai*, the Court concluded that the vehicle could be released while safeguarding its availability through a bank guarantee, a bond to produce it when required, and a prohibition on alterations.

It directed the Special Judge to release the motorcycle to the petitioner forthwith upon his furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹25,000 and a bond to produce the vehicle whenever required and not to make any changes or variations to it.

There was no order as to costs.