Decisions regarding the interim release of seized property must be reasoned and adhere to established legal precedents.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.102/2023 of Vattiyoorkavu Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act . The crime was registered on the allegation that, at 4.15 pm on 6/2/2023, 1.320 gm of MDMA was recovered from the petitioner's possession. The motor cycle in which the petitioner had reached the spot was also seized. Although the petitioner, moved a petition under Section 457 Cr.PC , seeking interim release of his vehicle, mobile phone, ATM Cards, Aadhar Card and purse, the Additional Sessions Court-1, Thiruvananthapuram allowed the prayer for the release of Purse, two ATM cards and digital watch and refused to release his vehicle and mobile phones. Aggrieved, this Crl.MC is filed.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that even going by the prosecution case, the contraband was seized from the petitioner's personal possession and hence the vehicle cannot be treated as a conveyance used for transporting the contraband. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision inThausif Ahammed Bengre v. State of Kerala[ 2018(1) KHC 598 ]. It is contended that even in cases where the inventory of the vehicle is prepared, certified and forwarded to the Drug Disposal Committee, this court inShanil and Ors v. State of Kerala and Ors [ 2023 (2) KHC 88 ] has held that the jurisdictional courts have the power to order interim release of the vehicle. Finally it is contended that inMidhun Thomas v. State of Kerala [ 2020(3) KHC 644 ], this Court has held that, release of the mobile phones of the accused, seized in connection with NDPS cases have to be considered independently.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after seizure, inventory of the vehicle was prepared and certified under Section 52A and the vehicle forwarded to the Drugs Disposal Committee. As the chemical analysis report was not appended to the inventory, the vehicle was returned to the investigating officer.

4. As regards the claim for release of the mobile phone, it is submitted that the investigation is underway and release of the mobile phone at this point of time will hamper the investigation.

5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Sessions Judge has not given any reason for rejecting the prayer for release of the vehicle and the mobile phone. It is settled law that orders passed without reason are liable to be set aside on that ground alone. As held by this court in Smart Logistics v. State of Kerala 2020 (5) KLT 298], seizure and confiscation of the vehicle amounts to deprivation of the right to property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, series of decisions have been rendered by this court on the question of interim release of vehicles seized in connection with NDPS Crimes. Surprisingly, the Sessions Judge has not adverted to any of those decisions.

5. The Crl.MC is hence disposed of as under;

The petitioner is permitted to file a fresh petition under Section

457 of Cr.PC seeking interim custody of his vehicle. If such a petition is filed, the same shall be decided on merits, after adverting to the precedents, including Thausif (supra) and Shanil (supra). If the petition is filed within three weeks, the same shall be decided within a further period of two weeks.