Successive writ petition for release of vehicle is not maintainable after withdrawal of earlier petition to challenge confiscation proceedings.

The petitioner, the registered owner of a KIA Seltos car (No. GJ-27 ED-9048), sought the release of her vehicle which was seized on 18.05.2025 during an investigation under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985

The petitioner’s application for release under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, was dismissed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) on 04.12.2025

A previous petition (SCR.A No. 9644 of 2025) before the High Court was withdrawn by the petitioner on 09.10.2025 after the State informed the court that confiscation proceedings had been initiated

The petitioner filed this successive application contending that confiscation proceedings cannot be initiated until the trial concludes

1. Whether a successive petition for the release of a seized vehicle is maintainable after a previous petition for the same relief was voluntarily withdrawn to challenge confiscation proceedings

2. Whether the initiation of confiscation proceedings under the NDPS Act bars the release of a vehicle under Section 497 of the BNSS during the pendency of the trial

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the custody and disposal of property

Section 63 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which governs the procedure for the confiscation of property used in the commission of offences under the Act, stipulating that such orders are typically made upon the conclusion of the trial

the principle of maintainability regarding successive applications when previous similar reliefs were withdrawn without liberty

The Court observed that the petitioner had previously approached the High Court for the same relief but chose to withdraw that petition (SCR.A No. 9644 of 2025) specifically to file appropriate proceedings against the initiated confiscation order

The Court found that the petitioner’s current argument—that Section 63 of the NDPS Act prohibits confiscation during the pendency of a trial—was a ground that could and should have been raised in the earlier petition or in a direct challenge to the confiscation order itself

The Court held that since the petitioner voluntarily withdrew the earlier petition to pursue a different legal remedy (challenging the confiscation), they cannot now file a successive petition for the same relief under BNSS Section 497

The Court ruled that the legal grounds regarding the timing of confiscation under the NDPS Act should be canvassed in the specific proceedings challenging the confiscation order rather than through a successive application for the release of the vehicle

Relief was denied