Vehicle seizure under NDPS Act requires evidence of direct use for drug transport.

Dated this the 05^th day of March, 2026 ORDER The petitioner is the registered owner of a car bearing registration No.KL-55-AL-5799, which was seized by the Investigating Officer in Crime No.778/2025 of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station, alleging that the vehicle was used by the accused for committing an offence under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act . ( ‘ NDPS Act’, for short)

2. Claiming interim custody of the above vehicle, the petitioner had filed an application before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. By Annexure A3 order, the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ernakulam, has allowed the application, subject to the conditions. As per condition No.6. the petitioner has been directed to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.5,00,000/- as security. The said condition is onerous and unjustifiable. Hence, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case.

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 was found in conscious possession of 12.8953 grams of MDMA, which was seized from his body. Indisputably, the contraband was not seized from the 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.Taking into consideration the law laid in the aforesaid decisions, and the fact that the contraband was seized from the body of the accused,which prima facie shows that the vehicle was not used for transporting the contraband, I am of the definite view that the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the case. Hence, I am satisfied that condition No. 6 in Annexure A3 order is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, I allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Case, by setting aside condition No.6 in Annexure A3 order. Nonetheless, the petitioner shall comply with condition Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 13. This order will not stand in the way of the competing authority proceeding with the confiscation proceedings.

SD/-