Interim custody of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act requires establishing owner complicity; vehicle can be returned without cash security.

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------------

Crl.M.C.No.508 OF 2026 ------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2026 ORDER The petitioner is the registered owner of a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-40-N-3866, which has been seized by the Detecting Officer in Crime No.141/2025, of the Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging that the vehicle was used to commit an 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 an application before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-VIII, Ernakulam (Trial Court). However, by Annexure-3 order, the Trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that an application to prepare inventory of the vehicle to be submitted before the Drug Disposal Committee is pending consideration before the said Court. The said order was passed on 12.06.2025. The vehicle is lying exposed to the vagaries of nature for the last six months. In fact the accused was allegedly found in possession of 320 grams of ganja. The vehicle was not used to carry the contraband article. Hence, Annexure-3 order is onerous and unjustifiable.

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

4. The petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the Detecting Officer for allegedly being involved in the above crime.

5. 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.

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 the aforesaid circumstances, particularly going by the reason stated in Annexure-3 order and that the order was passed on 12.06.2025, I am of the definite view that the petitioner is entitled to be granted interim custody of the vehicle.

Accordingly, I allow the Crl.M.C. by setting aside Annexure-3 order. The Trial Court is directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner by imposing appropriate conditions. It would be upto the Trial Court to modify/delete conditions, if any sought for in the future.

sd/-