1. Interim custody of vehicle seized under NDPS Act — Owner not accused — condition of bank guarantee challenged. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 64990
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Dias, J
Abisha K E – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 8314 OF 2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C. Dheeraj Rajan, Anand Kalyanakrishnan, Libin Varghese, Ganesh Chandran S.
For the Respondents: Devadas H. Mallan
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C. Dheeraj Rajan, Anand Kalyanakrishnan, Libin Varghese, Ganesh Chandran S.
For the Respondents: Devadas H. Mallan
In NDPS cases, if a vehicle is seized but the owner is not an accused and had no knowledge or connivance in the crime, the vehicle should be released on interim custody without imposing onerous security conditions like high bank guarantees.
Headnote:(Interim Custody of Vehicle) - NDPS Act - Release of vehicle on superdari where owner is not an accused - When contraband is seized from a third-party occupant without the owner's knowledge or connivance, the owner is not obliged to furnish onerous security such as a high bank guarantee. (Para 2, 5, 6) (Legal Principles) - Superdari - Classification of seizure scenarios - In cases where the vehicle was stolen or used by a third party without the owner's knowledge, and no allegation exists against the owner in the charge-sheet, the vehicle should normally be released subject to a bond to produce the vehicle or pay its value. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the condition to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 5 lakh for the interim release of a vehicle is reasonable when the registered owner is not an accused in the crime.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued no obligation to furnish security as vehicle used without knowledge per Bishwajit Dey. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Court observed no allegation of owner's consent or knowledge for transporting contraband, falling under fourth scenario. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Where contraband seized from third-party occupant without owner's knowledge, vehicle normally released on bond, not security. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Condition requiring bank guarantee set aside; petitioner to comply with remaining conditions. (Para 7 )
6. Under what scenarios may a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act be released on superdari?
In four scenarios; release is proper in third (stolen vehicle) and fourth (third-party occupant without owner's knowledge) scenarios. (Para 5 )
7. Can a vehicle owner who is not an accused be required to furnish a bank guarantee for interim custody?
No, where contraband was used without owner's knowledge, the owner need only furnish a bond; bank guarantee is onerous. (Para 2 , 5 , 6 )
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is the registered owner of a car bearing registration No. KL 65 C 5600 which was seized by the Peechi Police Station in Crime No.76/2025 on the allegation that the accused in the crime had used the vehicle to commit an offence punishable under Section 22(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘Act’, for short).
2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner filed an application before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur. The said application was allowed subject to conditions. As per condition No.(2), the petitioner has been directed to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.5/- lakh. The said condition is onerous and unreasonable. The petitioner is not an accused in the crime. Going by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (2025 KHC 6020), the petitioner is not obliged to furnish any security, especially since the vehicle was used without the petitioner’s knowledge or consent. Hence, condition No.(2) in the impugned order may be set aside.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that the petitioner is not an accused in the crime. Going by the law laid down in Bishwajit Dey’s Case (Supra), the petitioner falls only within the fourth scenario. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. However, the learned Magistrate has imposed onerous conditions on the petitioner.
5. In Bishwajit’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
“29. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place 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.
30. 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 owner and / or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and / or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated.”
6. Going by the law laid down in the aforecited decision, if the contraband is seized from a third party occupant, with or without consideration and that the contraband was stored in the vehicle without the owner’s knowledge or connivance, there is no legal impediment in granting interim custody of the vehicle to its owner.
7. In the c
