The court determines that onerous conditions for interim custody of vehicles seized under NDPS Act are unjustifiable if the owner lacks culpability.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 7711 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1841/2025 OF Punalur Police Station, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.16 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II(FOREST OFFENCES),PUNALUR PETITIONER:

AKSHAY KUMAR M AGED 24 YEARS S/O MURUKAN, AKSHAYA VILASAM,PASURMALA ESTATE,VALCODE P.O,PUNALUR,KOLLAM, PIN - 691331 BY ADV SHRI.NAHAS H.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 SR.PP. SRI. BREEZE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

16.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R Dated this the 16^th day of December 2025 The petitioner is the registered owner of a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-25-Q-1770, which has been seized by the Investigating Officer in Crime No.1841/2024, registered by the Punalur Police Station, Kollam, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’, in short).

2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner filed C.M.P.No.1678/2025 before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, (Forest Offences) Punalur ( Trial Court). By Annexure A4 order, the Trial Court allowed the application and granted interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. As per one of the conditions, the petitioner has been directed to furnish a cash security or bank deposit for Rs.1,10,000/-. The said condition is onerous and unjustifiable. Hence, the condition No.(a) in Annexure A4 order may be set aside.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the Investigating Officer in the above crime, alleging that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under the NDPS Act. Under Section 60 (3) of the NDPS Act, any conveyance that has been used for carrying any narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance is liable for confiscation.

5. Interpreting Section 60 (3) of the Act, in Thausif Ahammed Bengre v. State of Kerala ( 2018 (1) KHC 598 ), this Court has succinctly held that a vehicle can be confiscated only if it is established by the prosecution that the vehicle was used for carrying the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance, that too without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself or his agent.

6. Recently, in Denash v. The State of Tamil Nadu ( 2025 INSC 1258 ), the Honourable Supreme Court has held that there is no prohibition to release a conveyance to its owner, on interim custody, if the owner has no culpability in the crime.

7. The NDPS Act does not insist, unlike the Abkari Act or the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, for cash security/bank guarantee to grant interim custody of a vehicle.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the definite view that the direction that the petitioner should furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.1,10,000/- is onerous and unjustifiable, and is liable to be interfered by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS .

Accordingly, I allow the Crl.M.C. by setting aside the condition No.(a) in Annexure-A4 order, ordering the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.1,10,000/- Instead, I order the vehicle to be released to the petitioner on interim custody, subject to the condition that he executes a bond with two solvent sureties for Rs.1,10,000/- to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and specifically undertaking to comply with the other conditions