1. Revision against rejection of interim release of vehicle seized under NDPS Act, 1985 for transporting poppy husk. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 938
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Kuldeep Mathur, J.
Jasakaran Singh Alias Jassi S/o Dharam Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 472 of 2026
Decided On : 08-07-2026
Important Points
In NDPS cases, interim release of a seized vehicle under Section 497 BNSS is not an absolute right. If the registered owner is the accused and was driving the vehicle, interim custody is generally denied to prevent misuse and uphold statutory presumptions.
Subject
Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 497 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 60 and 63 - Interim custody of seized vehicle - Discretionary jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to pass an order for proper custody of property pending trial - Power to be exercised judiciously keeping in view the nature of the property, circumstances of seizure, and interests of justice - In cases under the NDPS Act, if the registered owner of the vehicle is the accused and was driving the vehicle at the time of recovery of contraband, the vehicle may not be released on interim custody until the reverse burden of proof is discharged. (Paras 11, 14, 15, 23)
(B) Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat - General principle that seized vehicles should not remain exposed to deterioration in police custody and should ordinarily be released on interim custody - This principle is not absolute and must be harmoniously applied with the special statutory scheme of the NDPS Act. (Paras 18, 19, 29)
(C) Doctrine of Per Incuriam - A decision of a coordinate bench is not binding if it was rendered in ignorance of a binding authority or inconsistent statute. (Paras 31, 32)
Facts of the case:
During a routine check, contraband poppy husk was recovered from the bonnet compartment of a vehicle. The registered owner, who was driving the vehicle at the time of recovery, was arrested and the vehicle was seized. An application for interim release of the vehicle was rejected by the trial court. The petitioner challenged this rejection in a revision petition.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's order rejecting the interim custody of the vehicle was correct. Since the petitioner was the registered owner and the driver of the vehicle at the time of the recovery of contraband, the risk of the vehicle being used for similar illegal activities cannot be ruled out, and the petitioner cannot claim interim release as a matter of right based on ownership or possible depreciation.
Issues: Whether the registered owner and accused in an NDPS case, who was driving the vehicle at the time of recovery of contraband, is entitled to the interim release of the seized vehicle under Section 497 BNSS.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the Criminal Court has discretionary jurisdiction under Section 497 BNSS to grant interim custody, such discretion must be exercised with caution in NDPS cases. Where the owner is the accused and was in control of the vehicle, the statutory presumptions under the NDPS Act apply, and interim release should not be granted merely on the ground of ownership or deterioration of the vehicle.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
(B) Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat - General principle that seized vehicles should not remain exposed to deterioration in police custody and should ordinarily be released on interim custody - This principle is not absolute and must be harmoniously applied with the special statutory scheme of the NDPS Act. (Paras 18, 19, 29)
(C) Doctrine of Per Incuriam - A decision of a coordinate bench is not binding if it was rendered in ignorance of a binding authority or inconsistent statute. (Paras 31, 32)
Facts of the case:
During a routine check, contraband poppy husk was recovered from the bonnet compartment of a vehicle. The registered owner, who was driving the vehicle at the time of recovery, was arrested and the vehicle was seized. An application for interim release of the vehicle was rejected by the trial court. The petitioner challenged this rejection in a revision petition.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's order rejecting the interim custody of the vehicle was correct. Since the petitioner was the registered owner and the driver of the vehicle at the time of the recovery of contraband, the risk of the vehicle being used for similar illegal activities cannot be ruled out, and the petitioner cannot claim interim release as a matter of right based on ownership or possible depreciation.
Issues: Whether the registered owner and accused in an NDPS case, who was driving the vehicle at the time of recovery of contraband, is entitled to the interim release of the seized vehicle under Section 497 BNSS.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the Criminal Court has discretionary jurisdiction under Section 497 BNSS to grant interim custody, such discretion must be exercised with caution in NDPS cases. Where the owner is the accused and was in control of the vehicle, the statutory presumptions under the NDPS Act apply, and interim release should not be granted merely on the ground of ownership or deterioration of the vehicle.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kshitij Vyas Mr. Praveen R. Jain
For the Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kshitij Vyas Mr. Praveen R. Jain
For the Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims registered owner entitled to release; State opposes citing owner as accused-driver and risk of misuse. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Discretion under Section 497 BNSS must consider offense nature; owner-accused scenario warrants denial absent proof of non-involvement. (Para 10 , 14 , 15 , 19 , 23 , 28 , 30 , 34 )
4. Vehicle not released on superdari when registered owner is accused and charged with transporting contraband, until reverse burden discharged. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 28 , 34 )
5. Revision dismissed; impugned order affirmed; no interference in revisional jurisdiction. (Para 35 )
6. Is interim release of a seized vehicle automatic under Section 497 BNSS in NDPS cases?
No, discretionary power must be exercised judiciously considering nature of property, circumstances of seizure, and interests of justice; not an absolute right. (Para 15 , 19 , 29 )
7. When should a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act be denied interim release?
Denied when registered owner is accused and was driving during recovery, falling under first scenario in Bishwajit Dey; release may defeat seizure purpose. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 28 )
8. Does Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai mandate release of all seized vehicles?
No, it emphasizes expeditious disposal but does not create absolute right; discretion must align with NDPS Act and Bishwajit Dey principles. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
9. Can a coordinate bench decision be disregarded if per incuriam?
Yes, a decision made in ignorance of binding authority is per incuriam and not binding; court may refuse to follow it. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 )
ORDER :
Kuldeep Mathur, J.
1. The present revision petition under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Misc. Case No.12/2026, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 497 BNSS seeking interim release of the vehicle, namely, Mahindra Thar bearing registration No. PB-09-AK-5000, seized in connection with FIR No.352/2025 registered at Police Station Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar, has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case are that during routine nakabandi on 20.11.2025, the police recovered 26 kilograms and 900 grams of contraband (poppy husk/straw) from a Mahindra Thar bearing registration No. PB-09-AK-5000. The contraband was recovered from the bonnet compartment of the vehicle. The petitioner, who is the registered owner and was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, was arrested on the spot. The vehicle was seized and FIR No.352/2025 came to be registered at Police Station Rajiyasar against the petitioner.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 497 BNSS seeking interim release of the vehicle, i.e., Mahindra Thar bearing registration No. PB-09-AK-5000, which came to be rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 13.03.2026.
4. While rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, the learned trial court observed that the petitioner was transporting a quantity of contraband in the vehicle in question. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assam ; (2025) 3 SCC 241, the learned court below held that since the petitioner himself is the registered owner of the vehicle and was driving the same at the time of recovery of the contraband, the possibility of the vehicle being used again for transportation of illicit drugs or for other criminal activities cannot be ruled out. Consequently, release of the vehicle on supurdgi would defeat the very purpose of its seizure.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that, according to the prosecution itself, the alleged recovery was effected while the petitioner was travelling in the vehicle in question. It was contended that being the registered owner of the vehicle, the petitioner is entitled to its interim release subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court.
6. It was further submitted that the vehicle in question ought to be released in favour of the petitioner, who is its undisputed registered owner and is suffering immense hardship due to its continued seizure. Keeping the vehicle parked in the open premises of the police station would expose it to the vagaries of weather, resulting in rapid deterioration and depreciation, ultimately reducing a valuable asset to junk. Reliance was placed upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat ; (2002) 10 SCC 283, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that keeping seized vehicles at police stations for prolonged periods serves no useful purpose and that such vehicles should ordinarily be released on interim custody.
7. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Rajendra @ Raju Vs. State of Rajasthan ; S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.555/2026 decided on 22.05.2026, has granted interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner therein on identical facts and circumstances.
8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that since the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and was himself driving the same at the time of recovery of the contraband, the case squarely falls within the first scenario delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishwajit De
