The imposition of onerous conditions for interim custody must align with statutory requirements and established legal precedents.

ORDER

The petitioner is the owner of a car bearing registration No. KL-07-CD-8686, which was seized by the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 441/2025 of the Eloor Police Station, Ernakulam, for allegedly being involved in an offence punishable under Section 22 (b) 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 Session, Ernakulam. By Annexure B order, the above court allowed the application subject to conditions. As per condition No. (6), the petitioner has been directed to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/- to the court as security to grant the interim custody of the vehicle. The said condition is onerous and unjustifiable. The vehicle has been lying exposed to the vagaries of nature since 18.10.2025. The above court has lost sight of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283]. Hence, the condition No(6) in Annexure B order may be set aside.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The petitioner's vehicle was seized by the Detecting Officer on 18.10.2025 on the allegation that the accused was found in conscious possession of 0.89 grams of MDMA while using the above-said 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. Undisputedly, the contraband seized from the accused is only 0.89 grams of MDMA. Therefore, prima facie, it cannot be said that the vehicle was used for the purpose of transporting the contraband article, which is necessary in order to confiscate the vehicle, as held by this Court in Thausif Ahammed Bengre’s case (supra).

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am satisfied that condition No.(6) in Annexure B order is onerous and is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, I allow the Crl.M.C., by setting aside the condition No. (6) in Annexure B order and direct the vehicle to be released to the petitioner, subject to the condition that the petitioner complies with the other conditions in Annexure B order.

Sd/-