Suresh Yadav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8 and 20 - Criminal Procedure Code - Interim custody of vehicle - Supurdnama - Principles for release of conveyances seized in narcotics cases - Broadly four scenarios identified: (i) owner of the vehicle is the person from whom contraband is recovered; (ii) contraband is recovered from the agent/driver hired by the owner; (iii) vehicle was stolen by the accused; (iv) contraband is recovered from a third-party occupant without owner's knowledge and connivance - In the first two scenarios, the vehicle may not be released on interim custody until the reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused-owner - In the third and fourth scenarios, the vehicle should normally be released subject to bonds - However, these are not rigid formulas and trial courts may adopt a pragmatic approach based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. (Paras 13 and 14)

(B) Interim release of vehicle - Distinction between owner-driver and owner-employer - Where the owner is also the driver and the accused in joint possession of contraband, and the vehicle carries no other legitimate commercial cargo to suggest bonafides, the refusal of interim custody is justified. (Paras 16 and 17)

Facts of the case:
A vehicle owned and driven by the applicant was seized after the recovery of 18kg and 600 gram of contraband from the joint possession of the applicant and a co-accused. The applicant, who was arrayed as an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, applied for the interim custody (Supurdnama) of the vehicle. The trial court rejected the application, leading to the present revision petition. The applicant contended that he was unaware of the contraband carried by the co-accused and that the vehicle would otherwise become dysfunctional.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the applicant was not merely the owner but also the driver of the vehicle from which the contraband was recovered. Unlike previous precedents where the owner was not the driver and the vehicle was transporting high-value commercial consignments (indicating lack of knowledge), the present vehicle carried no cargo other than the contraband. Thus, the applicant fell squarely within the scenario where the owner-driver is the accused in possession of the drugs.

Issues: Whether the vehicle should be released on interim custody (supurdnama) when the owner is also the driver and was found in joint possession of the contraband.

Ratio Decidendi: When the owner of the vehicle is also the driver and is an accused in the crime based on recovery of contraband from joint possession, and there is no evidence of other commercial goods being transported to establish bonafides, the vehicle should not be released on interim custody until the reverse burden of proof is discharged during trial.

Result: Revision dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Criminal revision against dismissal of application for interim custody of vehicle seized with contraband under NDPS Act. (Para 2 , 9 , 10 , 11 )

2. Owner-accused sought vehicle release citing no connection to crime; State opposed, supporting trial court order. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )

3. Revision dismissed; trial court order upheld as not perverse; vehicle not released due to owner being accused. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )

4. When can a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act be released on superdari to the owner who is also an accused?

Vehicle may not be released till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused-owner, as per principles in Bishwajit Dey. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 )

5. Is the strict formula of vehicle release categories applied rigidly or can courts consider peculiar facts?

Each case must be examined in its own facts; strict jacket formula cannot be applied, as held in Denash. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )

6. Does the presence of high-value commercial goods in a vehicle affect the decision to release it for interim custody in a NDPS case?

Yes, presence of valuable commercial cargo with no owner knowledge may support release; absence of such goods can distinguish a case. (Para 15 , 17 )

ORDER :

Avanindra Kumar Singh, J.

Heard on the question of admission.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this revision is heard finally.

2. This revision is filed against the order dated 31.12.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S.. Act, Katni in SC N.D.P.S. 63 of 2025.

3. The aforesaid order has been challenged on the ground that the applicant has no connection with the alleged crime and he has been falsely implicated. No cogent reason has been assigned for rejecting the application for Supurdnama of the Pick Up No. M.P.-18-Z.A. 9627.

4. It is further submitted that the entire reading of the prosecution case/charge-sheet it is clear that co- accused was carrying contraband substance and he was travelling as a passenger to travel from Amiliya to Kamore. The applicant was unaware regarding the fact that co- accused was carrying contraband substance, hence this on this ground alone the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

5. It is further submitted that under N.D.P.S. Act read with Cr.P.C. custody of the vehicle can be given to the owner and if it is not given then there is possibility of damage to the vehicle or the vehicle may become dysfunctional.

6. Learned Government Advocate for the State submits that the order of the trial court is well justified and this revision should be dismissed.

7. It it seen that perhaps due to cut and paste the ground no.4 is mentioned as "the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail." This typographical error is ignored.

8. On perusal of the order of learned trial court dated 31.12.2025, it is seen that on 31.12.2025 the first Superdnama application which was earlier filed was not pressed. It was dismissed on the same day. Second Superdnama application was filed on which arguments were heard by the trial court.

9. Against the present applicant and other co- accused Badi Pardhi a Crime No.397 of 2025 r/w Section 8/20 of N.P.D.S. Act was registered and charge-sheet has been filed and now the case is registered as Case No.63 of 2025.

10. Pick Up No. M.P.-18-Z.A. 9627 is registered in the name of the present applicant - Suresh Yadav.

11. As reflected from the order and arguments of learned counsel for both the parties 18kg and 600 gram was recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and Badi Pardhi.

12. It is seen that the trial has to take place. In the charge -sheet the Police has indicated that both the accused persons i.e. present applicant and other co- accused Badi Pardhi are involved in the crime under N.D.P.S. Act as stated above.

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Denash Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2276 has held as under :-

33. The situation at hand may be examined with reference to the principles enunciated by this Court in paragraphs 29 and 30 of Bishwajit Dey (supra), wherein four scenarios were delineated concerning the seizure of contraband from a conveyance, along with the general approach to be adopted by Courts while considering the question of interim release of such conveyances. Paragraphs 29 and 30 of Bishwajit Dey (supra), are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:—

“29. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized/recovered from a third- party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner's knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Avanindra Kumar Singh, J.
Suresh Yadav – Applicant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 484 of 2026
Decided On : 05-02-2026

Interim release of a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act depends on the seizure scenario. Where the owner is also the driver in possession of the contraband and lacks evidence of legitimate transport, the vehicle is generally not released until the reverse burden of proof is discharged.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. When can a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act be released on superdari to the owner who is also an accused?

5. Is the strict formula of vehicle release categories applied rigidly or can courts consider peculiar facts?

6. Does the presence of high-value commercial goods in a vehicle affect the decision to release it for interim custody in a NDPS case?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPURAvanindra Kumar Singh, J.Suresh Yadav – ApplicantVersusThe State Of Madhya Pradesh – RespondentCriminal Revision No. 484 of 2026Decided On : 05-02-2026

Interim release of a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act depends on the seizure scenario. Where the owner is also the driver in possession of the contraband and lacks evidence of legitimate transport, the vehicle is generally not released until the reverse burden of proof is discharged.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. When can a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act be released on superdari to the owner who is also an accused?

5. Is the strict formula of vehicle release categories applied rigidly or can courts consider peculiar facts?

6. Does the presence of high-value commercial goods in a vehicle affect the decision to release it for interim custody in a NDPS case?

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Avanindra Kumar Singh, J.
Suresh Yadav – Applicant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 484 of 2026
Decided On : 05-02-2026