Seized vehicles should be released on appropriate safeguards when continued police custody risks deterioration.

FIR No. 114 of 2026 was registered at Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun, under Sections 8/20/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”), after 1.276 kilograms of cannabis was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant’s husband.

The contraband was allegedly concealed beneath a Toyota Glanza G bearing Registration No. UK-07-BY-1120, which was consequently seized by the police. The applicant, being the registered owner, sought release of the vehicle on the ground that it was lying exposed in the police-station premises and deteriorating. The Special Judge, NDPS Act, Dehradun, rejected the application on 27 May 2026.

The applicant’s husband had meanwhile been granted regular bail.

The State opposed release, contending that the vehicle had allegedly been involved in an earlier narcotics-related offence and might again be used for unlawful activities if released.

1. Whether the vehicle seized in connection with an offence under the NDPS Act should continue to remain in police custody during the criminal proceedings, or could be released to its registered owner as interim custody subject to safeguards?

2. Whether the Special Judge’s order dated 27 May 2026 rejecting release of the vehicle was legally sustainable?

The Court considered the seizure in connection with offences under Sections 8/20/60 of the NDPS Act.

It applied the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, that seized vehicles should not be left unattended in police stations for prolonged periods because they may deteriorate and lose their value.

The evidentiary purpose of seizure can ordinarily be preserved through a proper inventory, photographs and, where necessary, videography.

Mere seizure does not require continued retention of the vehicle throughout the criminal proceedings; issues of confiscation remain subject to determination by the competent court. Interim release may therefore be ordered subject to appropriate conditions.

The Court noted that the applicant’s ownership of the vehicle and its prolonged custody with the police were undisputed, while the person from whose possession the contraband was allegedly recovered had already been granted bail.

Applying Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the Court held that continued exposure of the vehicle to weather in the police-station premises served no useful purpose and could cause avoidable deterioration.

The vehicle’s identity and evidentiary value could be adequately protected by preparing a detailed inventory and recording its registration, engine and chassis numbers, together with photographs or videography.

The State’s apprehension regarding possible misuse was addressed through conditions prohibiting alienation, alteration of identifying particulars and unlawful use, while requiring production of the vehicle whenever directed by the Investigating Officer or court.

It directed release of the Toyota Glanza G bearing Registration No. UK-07-BY-1120 to the applicant, its registered owner, upon her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Release was subject to conditions prohibiting sale, transfer, mortgage or creation of third-party interests; tampering with identifying particulars; failure to produce the vehicle when required; and use of the vehicle for unlawful purposes.

Before release, the Investigating Officer was directed to prepare an inventory and preserve photographs or videography.

The release was declared purely interim and subject to the final outcome of the criminal proceedings and any lawful order concerning confiscation or disposal.