Interim custody of a vehicle cannot be denied if the owner is not culpable for its use in a narcotics offense.

O R D E R

Dated this the 03^rd day of February, 2026 The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-64F-4455 which has been seized by the Detecting Officer in Crime No.1253/2025 of the Manjeri Police Station, alleging that the vehicle was used by the accused persons for committing the offences punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 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 Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act and NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri. However, by Annexure A3 order, the Special Court has dismissed the application on the specific finding that the vehicle was used by the husband of the petitioner with the full knowledge of the petitioner. Moreover, there is not a single sentence in the application that the vehicle was used by the accused persons for transportation of the contraband without the petitioner’s knowledge. Annexure A3 order is unreasonable and unjustifiable. Firstly, the vehicle was used without the petitioner’s knowledge, and secondly, it was not used to transport the contraband article, since, the contraband that was seized from the conscious possession of the accused persons is only 22.360 grams and 8.490 grams of MDMA, which was recovered from the body of the accused persons. Therefore, the findings in Annexure A3 order are palpably wrong and erroneous. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

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

4. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, two accused persons were found travelling in the petitioner’s car, from whose conscious possession 22.360 grams and 8.490 grams of MDMA were seized

5. The vehicle was seized on 20.09.2025, which is nearly six months now. The vehicle is left exposed to the vagaries of nature.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Taking in to consideration the allegation that the contraband articles were seized from the conscious possession of the accused persons and that the contraband is only 22.360 grams and 8.490 grams of MDMA, which can easily be carried in the body of an accused, I am of the prima facie view that the vehicle cannot be said to have been used for carrying the narcotic drug. Therefore, especially since the vehicle is lying exposed to the vagaries of the nature for the last nearly six months, I am of the view that the vehicle should be released on interim custody to the petitioner in view of the law referred to in the aforesaid decisions.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C in the following manner:

(i) Annexure A3 order is set aside.

(ii) CRL.M.C No.3646/2025 is allowed.

(iii) The petitioner is granted the interim custody of the vehicle, subject to the condition that she executes a bond for Rs.5/- lakh with one solvent surety to the satisfact