Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68270
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
SANIL C K – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 9589 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.507/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.GEO PAUL, SRI.C.R.PRAMOD, SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR
For the Respondents: SRI.SANAL P RAJ
Conditions for interim custody under NDPS Act must align with statutory provisions; onerous conditions can be quashed.
Headnote:The judgment addresses the legality of a condition imposed by the Sessions Court in granting interim custody of a vehicle seized under suspected narcotics-related offences. The Court determines that the requirement for a bank guarantee is unjustifiable as per statutory mandates (NDPS Act, 1985). Consequently, the onerous condition was quashed in light of inherent powers under BNSS, allowing the petitioner to comply with remaining stipulations while rejecting the specific security requirement.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. vehicle seized under ndps act. (Para 1) |
| 2. criteria for vehicle release and statutory obligations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
O R D E R
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2025 The petitioner’s vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-
42-R-42, was seized by the Investigating Officer in Crime No.507/2025 of the Maradu Police Station, for allegedly being involved in the offences punishable under Sections 22 (b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 , (‘NDPS Act’, in short). The petitioner had filed C.M.P.No.4590/2025 under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Ernakulam (‘Trial Court’, in short) seeking interim custody of the vehicle. By Annexure A1 order, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the application subject to 13 conditions. As per condition No.6, the learned Sessions Judge directed the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.1,00,000/- as security for releasing the vehicle. The said condition is onerous and unjustifiable, especially because the statute does not contemplate the furnishing of security. Moreover, the petitioner has been directed to execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to abide by the other conditions stipulated in the order. Hence, condition No.6 in the impugned order may be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. It is true that under Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act, a conveyance that is used for carrying any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances is liable to be confiscated under sub-sections (1) and (2) of the said Section, if it is used for the said purposes. However, the statute does not contemplate that the vehicle is to be released on interim custody only on furnishing cash/bank security.
4. On a reading of the impugned order, I find that the learned Sessions Judge has directed the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum. It is an addition to the said condition that the petitioner has also been directed to furnish the bank guarantee for Rs.1,00,000/- as security.
As there is no statutory stipulation that the owner of the vehicle is to furnish a bank guarantee/cash security, I am of the definite view that condition No.6 in the impugned order is onerous. Consequently, in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS , I allow the Crl.M.C and quash condition No.6 in the impugned order. The petitioner is directed to comply with the other conditions in the impugned order.
