Interim custody of a seized vehicle under the NDPS Act does not necessitate bank guarantees if the owner shows no culpability.

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C.No.780 of 2026 ------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2026

ORDER

The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL 14 AE 3324 which has been seized by the Detecting Officer in Crime No.848 of 2025 of the Manjeshwar Police Station, alleging that the vehicle was used for commission of the offence punishable under Section 22 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘ the NDPS Act’ in short).

2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner filed an application before the Court of Sessions, Kasaragod. However, by Annexure A1 order, the above court has allowed the application, but subject to the condition the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee for Rs.1,07,000/-. The above condition is onerous and unjustifiable, especially because the vehicle was not used for transportation of the contraband. The total contraband involved in the case is 8.77 gms of MDMA, which was seized from the conscious possession of the accused.

Therefore, the above condition may be set aside.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing 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.

In the afore said circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C. by setting aside the condition in Annexure 1 order, directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.1,07,000/- for the purpose of granting interim custody of the vehicle. Nonetheless, the petitioner shall comply with all the other conditions in Annexure 1 order.

Sd/-