A vehicle's interim custody under narcotics laws can be granted if the owner is not culpable.

2025 registered by the Excise Range Office, Kaduthuruthy, Kottayam, alleging that he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)A and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘the Act’, in short). The petitioner is also a registered owner of a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-36-K-7351. Alleging that the vehicle was used for commission of the above offences, the Investigating Officer in the above crime has seized the vehicle.

2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner filed C.M.P.No.6752 of 2025 before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Vaikom (learned Magistrate). However, by Annexure A1 order, the learned Magistrate, has dismissed the application, on the ground that Sections 42 and 43 of the Act empowers the competent officer to seize the contraband article, and the conveyance that was used for transporting the same. Although the petitioner challenged Annexure A1 order before the Court of Session, Kottayam, the same was also dismissed by Annexure A2 order, on the ground that Annexure A1 is not a revisable order. Annexure A1 order is unreasonable and unjustifiable. Hence, the Crl.M.C. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The above crime has been registered against the petitioner for allegedly being found in possession of 42 grams of ganja, which was stored beneath the seat cover of the vehicle. It is undisputed that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle.

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 taking into consideration the fact that the contraband article that was allegedly seized from the conscious possession of the petitioner is only 42 grams of ganja, I am of the prima facie view that the vehicle was not used for transporting the said contraband article. Nonetheless, that is a matter to be ultimately decided at the time of trial. However, taking into consideration the fact that the vehicle is lying exposed to the vagaries of nature, and is liable to be ruined, I am of the view that the interim custody of the vehicle is to be granted to the petitioner on appropriate conditions.

Accordingly, I allow the Crl.M.C. by setting aside Annexure-A1 order, and allowing C.M.P. No.6752/2025. The learned Magistrate is directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner on imposing appropriate conditions.

Sd/-