Vehicle owners are liable under NDPS Act for contraband found in permanent improvised structural modifications.

On February 10, 2025, police detained a vehicle in Ambassa and recovered 9,24,000 "Yaba" tablets weighing 100.095 kg, hidden in a cuboidal artificial chamber attached to the fuel tank.

The driver and co-driver were arrested, and a charge sheet was subsequently filed naming eight individuals, including the petitioners, Sajahan Alom Laskar and Saikul Islam, who were initially shown as absconders.

Sajahan is the registered owner of the vehicle.

Saikul Islam is his brother, and Call Detail Record (CDR) analysis revealed he had multiple telephonic communications with the arrested driver at odd hours (00:25 to 01:44) just prior to the seizure.

The petitioners surrendered on December 5, 2025, and moved the High Court for bail.

1. Whether the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act bar the grant of bail to the registered owner of a vehicle used for transporting commercial quantities of contraband when a permanent hidden chamber was constructed in said vehicle.

2. Whether CDR analysis showing communication at odd hours with the driver, coupled with witness statements, constitutes sufficient "reasonable grounds" to deny bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The court primarily applied Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which mandates that bail for commercial quantities can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit an offence while on bail.

It referenced Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act regarding the presumption of culpable mental state.

The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (2025) 3 SCC 241, which establishes that the owner of a vehicle or their agent is necessarily arrayed as an accused when contraband is recovered from the vehicle.

It further distinguished the principles in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 417 regarding foundational facts and the burden of proof.

Regarding Sajahan Alom Laskar (the owner), the court observed that the contraband was found in a permanent artificial chamber deforming the fuel tank.

The court reasoned that such an improvisation could not likely be made without the owner's knowledge or consent, establishing his prima facie dominion over the vehicle.

Applying Biswajit Dey, the court held the owner liable for the recovery.

Regarding Saikul Islam, the court pointed to witness testimony (Iqbal Hossain) specifically naming him as an individual engaged in drug trafficking and the use of hidden chambers.

The court found that five calls made to the driver during "odd hours" immediately preceding the police Naka point seizure created a strong circumstantial link.

The court held that the high threshold of Section 37—requiring "reasonable grounds for believing" the accused is not guilty—was not satisfied for either petitioner.

The court held that the gravity of the recovery and the specific evidence against the owner and his brother precluded their release under the strict bail provisions of the NDPS Act.

The court also dismissed the plea for parity with other co-accused who were granted bail, noting those orders were based on procedural failures (non-communication of grounds of arrest) not applicable to the current petitioners.