Seized vehicles should be released to registered owners on interim custody, subject to stringent safeguards.

The petitioner, claiming to be the registered owner of Mahindra Scorpio bearing Registration No. UK-18G-7100, challenged the order dated 15 April 2026 by which the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act/1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, rejected his application for release of the seized vehicle.

FIR No. 0380 of 2025 was registered at Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital, under Sections 8/20/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. On 22 October 2025, the vehicle was intercepted and searched, allegedly resulting in the recovery of 44.05 kilograms of ganja from accused Harjeet Singh, who was arrested; the vehicle was also seized.

The petitioner asserted that he was neither present at the spot nor arrested, that no contraband was recovered from him, and that Harjeet Singh had taken the vehicle on the pretext of attending a marriage ceremony without the petitioner’s knowledge of any illegal activity.

He further submitted that Harjeet Singh had been enlarged on bail and that the vehicle was lying exposed in the open premises of the police station and deteriorating.

The State opposed release on the ground that the vehicle had allegedly been used in an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act and had allegedly been involved in an earlier narcotics-related offence.

The High Court noted that the petitioner was the registered owner, was not apprehended at the place of recovery, and had no contraband recovered from his personal possession.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to the seizure arising from offences under Sections 8/20/60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

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 and other articles should not ordinarily remain unattended at police stations for prolonged periods because they deteriorate and lose their value; where their identity and evidentiary value can be preserved through inventory, photographs and videography, interim release may be granted to the person entitled to possession on appropriate conditions.

The Court further held that mere seizure of a vehicle in an N.D.P.S. case does not necessarily require its continued physical retention by the police throughout the trial, and that interim release does not determine the eventual question of confiscation, which remains subject to adjudication in accordance with law.

The Court found that continued retention of the Scorpio in the open police-station premises would serve no useful purpose because the vehicle had remained in custody for a considerable period and was liable to deteriorate.

The petitioner’s status as registered owner, his non-presence at the alleged recovery, and the absence of any recovery from his personal possession supported consideration of interim custody.

Applying Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the Court held that the vehicle’s identity and evidentiary value could be adequately preserved by preparing a detailed inventory and taking photographs and videography before release.

The State’s apprehension that the vehicle might again be used for illegal activities was addressed through conditions prohibiting transfer or alteration of the vehicle and requiring its production whenever directed.

Interim release was held not to affect the prosecution’s rights or any future confiscation order.

It directed release of Scorpio bearing Registration No. UK-18G-7100 to the petitioner, the registered owner, upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The release was subject to conditions that the petitioner would not sell, transfer, alienate, mortgage or create third-party rights in the vehicle; would not alter its registration, engine, chassis or identifying particulars; would maintain and produce it whenever required; and would ensure that it was not used for any unlawful purpose.

Before release, the Investigating Officer was directed to prepare a detailed inventory and take coloured photographs and, if necessary, videography of the vehicle.

The Court clarified that the release was purely interim, created no equity in favour of the petitioner, and remained subject to the final outcome of the criminal proceedings and any eventual confiscation or disposal order.