1. Seizure of vehicle for alleged NDPS offence — Owner's application for interim custody dismissed by trial court. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 68419
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
S. Balasubramani – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case | Crl.M.P.No.6155 of 2025 | Crime No.244 of 2024
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Durai Pandian
For the Respondents:M. Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Durai Pandian
For the Respondents:M. Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Crl.side)
Under Section 497 BNSS, seized vehicles should not be kept idle; ownership undisputed warrants release with conditions; trial courts must exercise power promptly to prevent deterioration.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 497 and 503 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 22(b) and 29(1) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 19, 20 and 21 - Criminal Revision - Interim custody of vehicle seized under NDPS Act - Power of court to order custody and disposal of property pending trial - Procedure upon seizure of property - Ownership not in dispute - Release with bank guarantee and bond - Pendency of confiscation proceedings not a bar - Reliance on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638) - Trial court's order dismissing application for release of vehicle set aside. (Paras 13, 16, 17, 18)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Property custody - Section 497 BNSS - Court must exercise power judiciously and without delay - Keeping seized vehicle in open yard for long period leads to damage - No useful purpose served - Owner entitled to use property subject to conditions - Principles of natural justice - Impugned order unsustainable. (Paras 16, 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, owner of a car, sought interim custody of the vehicle seized by police on 14.11.2024 in connection with alleged possession of 5 pockets of methamphetamine (each 5 grams) under the NDPS Act. The trial court dismissed the application, leading to this revision.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the trial court did not properly exercise power under Section 497 BNSS. The ownership of the vehicle was not in dispute. Keeping the vehicle in the custody of the trial court in the open yard would cause deterioration and would not serve any purpose. The owner should be allowed to enjoy the property pending trial, subject to appropriate conditions. The procedure under Section 503 BNSS should also be followed promptly.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to release the seized vehicle to its owner pending trial, despite ownership not being disputed and the vehicle being liable to deterioration.
Ratio Decidendi: The power under Section 497 BNSS must be exercised judiciously and without delay. When ownership is not disputed and the property is not subject to confiscation, it should be released to the owner on suitable conditions (bank guarantee and bond) to prevent damage and hardship. Mere pendency of confiscation proceedings does not bar release.
Result: Criminal Revision allowed. Impugned order set aside. Trial court directed to release the vehicle forthwith in favour of the petitioner upon furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.2,00,000 and a bond undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims ownership and hardship; respondent opposes release citing use in drug transport. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. Revision allowed — Trial court's order set aside — Vehicle directed to be released on furnishing bank guarantee and bond. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. What is the proper exercise of power under Section 497 BNSS for interim custody of seized property?
The court must act judiciously and promptly; keeping property in open yard leads to damage; release should be ordered on bond and guarantee to avoid deterioration and hardship. (Para 13 , 16 , 17 )
5. Does undisputed ownership entitle the owner to interim custody of a seized vehicle?
Yes, especially when no other claimant exists and the vehicle is at risk of deterioration; the court may impose conditions such as bank guarantee and bond. (Para 16 , 18 )
6. Is pendency of confiscation proceedings a bar to release of a seized vehicle?
No, as held by the Allahabad High Court in several cases; release can be ordered pending confiscation proceedings, and the pendency does not operate as a bar. (Para 14 , 15 )
O R D E R
This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.6155 of 2025, dated 15.07.2025, on the file of the Special Court for EC and NDPS Act, Pudhukottai and hand over the Vehicle, (Maruthi Baleno Delta Patrol Car) bearing registration No.TN-10- AZ-1614 to the petitioner’s custody.
2.The case of the Prosecution is that on secret information, the police team on 14.11.2024, at about 06.10 am., went to the place of occurrence and at that time, the accused persons were identified by the respondent and thereafter, a search was made by the respondent. After search, the petitioner was found in possession of 5 pockets of methamphetamine, each pocket contains 5 gram of methamphetamine in the vehicle in question (Maruthi Baleno Delta Patrol Car), bearing registration No.TN-10-AZ-1614. Thus, the respondent seized the said vehicle and a case was registered in Cr.No.244 of 2024 under Section 8(c), 22(b) and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985. Hence, the Revision Petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.6155 of 2025, seeking interim custody of the said vehicle, before the Trial Court and by the impugned order, the Trial Court had dismissed the said petition, refusing to release the said vehicle. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, as stated above.
3.On behalf of the respondent, Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) has filed counter affidavit and in reply thereto, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has also filed the rejoinder affidavit and the same are available on record.
4.This Court heard Mr.K.Durai Pandian, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the Respondent.
5.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the Revision Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and that the Vehicle in question was misused by the accused persons, however, the Respondent Police seized the vehicle in question in an arbitrary manner and had falsely lodged the complaint against him only on suspicion and against the provisions of law and the action of Respondent is arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and he has not indulged in any such illegal activities by using the said vehicle.
6.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the impugned order of the Court below in rejecting the application filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking return of the vehicle in question is not sustainable and that when the ownership of the vehicle in question is not in dispute, the impugned order of the Court below, refusing to return the vehicle, is not sustainable. Thus, the learned Counsel seeks to quash the impugned order and to release the vehicle in question.
7.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the Revision Petitioner is facing great jeopardize due to confiscation of the vehicle in question by the Respondent and his livelihood is depend upon the said vehicle and the said vehicle is the main source of earning and now his family has come at the verge of starvation. Thus, the action of the Respondent is clear cut violation of Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
8.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that from the date of seizure, the vehicle in question is kept in the custody of the Trial Court in the open yard and with the passage of time, ultimately it will become junk and after sometime, it is not useful for any purpose. The learned Counsel has relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar Vs. State of Gujrat , AIR 2003 SC 638
9.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court, regarding the provisions of Sections 497 and 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which is quoted as under:-
"497. Order for custody and disposal of pr
