A vehicle seized under the NDPS Act can be released on interim custody if its owner is not culpable in its use for illegal activities.

O R D E R Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2025 The petitioner is the owner of a car bearing registration No.KL-01-CW-3092 and the accused in Crime No.1197/2025 registered by the Vizhinjam Police Station. The vehicle was seized by the Investigating Officer in the above crime, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘ Act’, in short).

2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner filed C.M.P.No.3351/2025 before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-VII, Neyyattinkara ( Trial Court). However, by Annexure A4 order, the Trial Court dismissed the application, on the ground that the vehicle was used for transporting contraband. Hence, the vehicle cannot be released to the petitioner. Annexure A4 order is erroneous and unsustainable in law. Thus, the Crl.

M.C.

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

4. The materials on record reveal that the petitioner’s vehicle has been seized by the Investigating Officer in the above crime on the allegation that the accused who was travelling in the vehicle was allegedly found in possession of 410 grams of ganja. It is on the said basis that the petitioner’s vehicle was seized on

14.07.2025.

5. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the Detecting Officer for allegedly being involved in the above crime, which is registered under the NDPS Act. Under Section 60 (3) of the Act, any conveyance that has been used for carrying any narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance is liable for confiscation.

6. 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 with the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself or his agent.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. In view of the exposition of law in the afore-cited decisions and the fact that the vehicle has been in custody since 14.07.2025, and further that the contraband that was allegedly seized from the accused was 410 grams of ganja, I am of the definite view that the continued custody of the vehicle is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and set aside Annexure A4 order.

Accordingly, I allow the Crl.M.C. in the following manner:-

(i) The vehicle bearing registration No. KL-01-CW-

3092 shall be released to the petitioner on him executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the Trial Court to produce the vehicle before the Investigating Officer as well as the Trial Court as and when directed.

(iii) The petitioner shall not sell, alienate or encumber the vehicle without further orders from the Trial Court.

(iv) The Investigating Officer would be at liberty to take photographs and such o