Court establishes that interim custody of a seized vehicle requires proof of ownership knowledge of its use in a drug-related crime.

ORDER

The petitioner is the owner of a car bearing registration No. KL-57-J-7702, which was seized by the Investigating Officer in Crime No.131/2025 of the Karuvarakundu Police Station, Malappuram, for allegedly being involved in an offence punishable under Section 22 (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 First Class Magistrate-I, Manjeri (‘learned Magistrate’, for brevity). By Annexure 1 order, the learned Magistrate allowed the application, but has directed the petitioner to furnish a cash deposit of Rs.4,70,000/-, being the market value of the vehicle. The said condition is onerous and unjustifiable. Hence, the said condition in Annexure 1 order may be set aside.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Undisputedly, the petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the Investigating Officer on the allegation that the accused was found in conscious possession of 0.310 grams of MDMA in his purse while using the above-said vehicle. The accused was arrested on the spot with the contraband article. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Admittedly, the contraband seized from the accused is only 0.310 grams of MDMA. Going by the principles laid down in Thausif Ahammed Bengre’s case (supra), the vehicle can be confiscated subject to the condition that the accused used the vehicle for the purpose of carrying the narcotic drug or psychotropic substances. In light of the allegations in the present case that the contraband was seized from the purse of the accused person, which is of small quantity, I am of the view that there is no necessity for the petitioner to furnish the cash security for the purpose of releasing the vehicle.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the definite view that the direction that the petitioner should furnish a cash security for Rs. 4,70,000/- is onerous and unjustifiable and is liable to be interfered by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS .

Accordingly, I allow the Crl.M.C., by setting aside the condition in Annexure 1 order, and direct the vehicle to be released to the petitioner on him executing a bond of Rs. 4,70,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate and complying with the condition Nos. (2) to (8) in Annexure 1 order.