Interim custody of a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act should not be encumbered by onerous conditions like bank guarantees when there is no allegation of the vehicle being used for transporting contraband or complicity of the owner.

ORDER

The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-29-R-6930, which was seized by the Investigating Officer in Crime No.838/2025 of the Ottappalam Police Station, Palakkad, alleging that the vehicle was used for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)A and 22(b) read with Section 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 Court of Sessions, Palakkad. By Annexure 3 order, the said Court has allowed the application subject to the condition that the petitioner has to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.1,00,000/-. The said 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 learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the vehicle was seized by the Investigating Officer because the same was purchased with the proceeds of the crime. Therefore, the competent authority is proposing to confiscate the vehicle as envisaged under Section 68A of the NDPS Act. Hence, there is no illegality in Annexure 3 order passed by the above Court.

5. A reading of the allegations in the FIR would substantiate that the contraband article was seized from the house of the accused persons and not from the said vehicle. There is no allegation that the vehicle was purchased with the proceeds of the crime.

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. In Bishwajith Dey v. State of Assam (2025 (3)

SCC 241), the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:

33. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take placed in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized/recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner's knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused.

34. This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the