A vehicle cannot be confiscated without proving its use in drug transport with the owner's knowledge.

O R D E R

Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2026 The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-59-4006, which has been seized by the Investigating Officer in Crime No.91/2026 registered by the Thaliparamba Police Station, Kannur, alleging that the accused used the vehicle for allegedly committing 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 the Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Vatakara. By the impugned Annexure A3 order, the above application was allowed subject to conditions. As per Condition No.1, the petitioner has been directed to produce a bank guarantee or similar cash security for the value of the vehicle to be assessed by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector and execute a self bond for such amount. The above condition is onerous and unjustifiable. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

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

4. The Investigating Officer has seized the petitioner’s vehicle on the allegation that the accused person in the crime had used the vehicle for the purpose of transporting 3.6478 grams of MDMA. Indisputably, the contraband was seized from the body of the accused. 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. In the present case, it is seen that the contraband article was seized from the body of the accused person. Going by the law laid down in Thausif Ahammed Bengre’s case (supra), it is necessary that the vehicle was used for transporting the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. Since the quantity involved in the case is of intermediate quantity which was admittedly seized from the body of the accused person, prima facie I do not find that the vehicle was used for transportation of the contraband article.

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, I set aside Condition No.1 in Annexure A3 order directing the petitioner to produce a bank guarantee or cash security for the value of the vehicle. Nonetheless, the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the like-sum for the satisfaction of the Special Court and comply with condition Nos.2 to 7 in Annexure-A3 order. This order shall not stand in the way of the competent authority proceeding with the confiscation proceedings.

Sd/-