Interim custody of seized vehicles under the NDPS Act is permissible to prevent deterioration, even to GPA holders, if not specifically restricted; courts retain discretion based on circumstances.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the order dated 05.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.26 of 2025 in Crime No.352 of 2024 of Afzalgunaj Police Station, Hyderabad and Consequently, prayed the Court to direct the concerned to release of the Car of the Petitioner vide Hyundai i20 vehicle bearing No.TS-08-GV-0799 to the GPA Holder/father of the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a petition before the trial Court vide Crl.M.P.No.26 of 2025 in Crime No.352 of 2024 under Section 497 read with 503 of BNSS, seeking interim custody of a Hyundai i20 vehicle bearing registration No.TS-08-GV-0799. As per the prosecution, on 22.07.2024 at approximately 17:50 hours, at the OGH parking lot located behind the mortuary at Afzalgunj, Hyderabad, the accused were found in possession of 1.3 kg of ganja, 1 gram of OG ganja weed, vehicles and cell phones. Consequently, the petitioner, along with other accused persons, is alleged to have committed offenses punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) and Section 27 of the NDPS Act.

3. After hearing both sides, the trial Court, by order dated 05.03.2025 dismissed the petition observing that the seized vehicle belonged to accused No.1, who has been absconding since the registration of the case and is reportedly residing in the UK. The vehicle is now being claimed by his father through a General Power of Attorney (GPA). However, a GPA holder may not possess the legal authority to claim the vehicle on behalf of the owner under the NDPS Act. Granting custody of the seized vehicle to a GPA holder is generally barred unless there is a specific legal provision or Court order permitting it. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner has filed the present criminal petition.

4. Heard Sri M. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen who relocated to the United Kingdom in February 2021 for better career opportunities and has been residing and working there since. In August 2024, the petitioner was shocked to learn of FIR No.354 of 2024 registered by the Afzalgunj Police under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 27 of the NDPS Act, falsely implicating him while also declaring him as absconding and seizing his vehicle bearing Registration No.TS-08 GV-0799. He further submitted that the petitioner was not in India on the date of the alleged offence, and there is no material evidence linking him to the crime. The FIR appears to be based solely on unverified confessional statements of co-accused persons. Despite this, the Police registered the FIR and unlawfully seized the Petitioner's vehicle without following due process or statutory procedures under the BNSS, 2023. The vehicle was seized from a parking area unrelated to the alleged offence and was not used for any illegal activity. The continuation of such proceedings against the Petitioner amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the father of the petitioner, who holds a valid General Power of Attorney, had filed Crl. M.P. No.26 of 2025 seeking interim custody of the vehicle on behalf of the Petitioner. However, the said petition was erroneously dismissed by the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge solely on the ground that a GPA holder may not claim the vehicle, despite settled judicial precedents permitting such interim