A vehicle cannot be denied release merely for being involved in an NDPS offence without evidence of conscious possession; reliance on case law confirmed this principle.

ORAL ORDER

RULE. Learned APP waives notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents.

[1.0] The petitioner has preferred this petition, seeking to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India so also inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short “ BNSS ”) with a prayer to release Muddamal Vehicle i.e Maruti Suzuki EECO Car bearing RTO registration No.GJ-01-RJ-6162, as well as Muddamal mobile i.e. Samsung Galaxy A-21s having IMEI No.355372111397067 which were seized in connection with the FIR No.11192029240082 of 2024 , registered with Koth Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural for the offence punishable under Sections 8 (C), 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”).

[2.0] Learned Advocate for the petitioner has urged that this Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

[3.0] Learned APP has opposed the present petition on the ground that the impugned vehicle was used in transporting the contraband but except this no any material or evidence which suggest that from the said vehicle the alleged contraband was found and nothing was found from the conscious possession of the said vehicle. The alleged contraband was found from a residential home. Therefore, the impugned vehicle is not required to be released and the same is required to be confiscated. Even the trial Court has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bishwajit Dey Vs State of Assam reported in 2025 INSC 32 , and come to the conclusion that the vehicle is seized in connection with the offence of NDPS Act and liable to be confiscated in view of bar under Section 60 and is not required to be released. Hence, requested to dismiss the petition.

[4.0] Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

[5.0] Going through the allegations, this Court is of the considered view that merely because the vehicle is used in the commission of the offence of NDPS Act, is not a ground to refuse the application for release of muddamal. At the time of deciding the application for release of muddamal seized under NDPS Act which does not bar the jurisdiction under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C or Section 60 of the NDPS Act. Exercising the power under Section 60 of the NDPS Act the Court must have to satisfy that the vehicle was used in the transportation of alleged contraband and the vehicle was used in transportation either it was found in conscious possession. As per the case of prosecution the car was used for transportation of contraband by the co-accused based on the statement of co-accused but there is no evidence or material which suggest that from the said vehicle the contraband was seized.

[6.0] Considering the above facts and keeping in mind the law laid down in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs State of Assam reported in 2025 INSC 32 , as such no purpose would serve to keep the vehicle for identification in police station, it is expedient to avoid situation of vehicle getting deteriorated pending the trial and hence, keeping in mind the aforesaid peculiar fact and keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002)10 SCC 283, with certain stringent conditions, present petition deserves consideration in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

[7.0] Resultantly, this petition is ALLOWED [8.0] The learned Trial Court / authority concerned is directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner being Maruti Suzuki EECO Car bearing RTO registration No.GJ-01-RJ-6162 as well as Muddamal mobile i.e. Samsung Galaxy A-21s having IMEI No.355372111397067 on the terms and conditions that the petitioner:

(i) shall furnish a solvent surety of the amount equivalent to the price of the vehicle in question stated in the FIR /

panchnama.

(ii) shall