Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
L. Victoria Gowri, J
Sudhakar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamilnadu – Respondent
CRL RC(MD)No.1048 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Muthumalai Raja
For the Respondents: T.Senthil Kumar
The court maintains jurisdiction under the Cr.P.C. and BNSS to order the interim release of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act; such release should be granted on stringent conditions to avoid value decay, even for an accused, provided the prosecution's interests are protected.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 36-C, 51, 60, and 63 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 451 and 457 - Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Sections 497 and 503 - Interim custody of vehicle - Seizure of motorcycle in NDPS case - Refusal of trial court to grant interim custody to accused - Alleged use of vehicle in commission of offence - Confiscation proceedings initiated. (Paras 3, 5, 20, 22)
(B) Interim Custody - Principles for release - Prevention of natural decay - Vehicle should not be allowed to remain in police custody for long periods causing loss of value - Conditional release on sureties and undertaking - Accused person’s status does not automatically bar interim custody - Courts must balance prosecution interest with avoidance of property destruction. (Paras 24, 25, 28, 29)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is the registered owner of a motorcycle seized in connection with an NDPS offence. He filed for interim custody, which was rejected by the trial court primarily because he is the primary accused, the vehicle was allegedly used in the commission of the offence, and confiscation proceedings had been initiated.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the mere initiation of confiscation proceedings under the NDPS Act does not divest the criminal court of its jurisdiction to regulate the interim custody of a seized vehicle under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code or the BNSS. The court observed that leaving vehicles to decay in open custody serves no judicial purpose.
Issues: Whether the status of an accused and the existence of confiscation steps under the NDPS Act bars the court from granting interim custody of a seized vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to regulate custody of case property continues to vest in the court until a final judicial determination on confiscation; therefore, interim release should be granted on stringent conditions to protect the property from decay while securing the prosecution's interest.
Result: Criminal Revision Petition allowed with conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction of courts to grant interim custody despite serious charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual background and trial court's rationale for refusal. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. balancing personal rights of owner against prosecution investigative interests. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. legal necessity to prevent property decay versus state's confiscation power. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. order granting interim custody with specific restrictive conditions. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
ORDER
Preface:
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 11.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2071 of 2025 by the learned Principal Special Judge for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai, declining to grant interim custody of a KTM 200 Duke motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-69-BM-0420, seized in connection with Crime No.435 of 2024 on the file of PEW Thoothukudi Police Station.
2. The petitioner is the registered owner of the motorcycle and is also arrayed as Accused No.1 in the said crime. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner and a co-accused sold 1.750 kg of ganja using the said vehicle. The learned Special Judge, referring to the petitioner’s status as Accused No.1, the alleged use of the vehicle for selling ganja, and the initiation of confiscation steps, refused to release the motorcycle on interim custody.
3. The question that arises is not whether NDPS offences are serious - they undoubtedly are - but whether such seriousness, and the initiation of steps towards confiscation, ipso facto divest the criminal court of its jurisdiction to regulate interim custody of seized vehicles under Sections 451 / 457 Cr.P.C., 1973 (now 497 / 503 BNSS), especially in the light of Sections 36-C , 51, and 63 of the NDPS Act, and the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat 11 (2002) 10 SCC 283, Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam22 2025 INSC 32, and Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu 33 2025 SCC OnLine 2276, which deal with interim custody and disposal of vehicles in criminal and NDPS matters. This Court is called upon to examine whether the impugned order is legally sustainable and, if not, whether the vehicle can be released to the petitioner on stringent conditions, despite his status as Accused No.1.
Case of the Prosecution:
5. The prosecution version, as gathered from the case papers and the objection to Crl.M.P.No.2071 of 2025, is as follows:
The respondent / PEW Thoothukudi Police registered Crime No. 435 of 2024 for offences under the NDPS Act, including Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 25, alleging involvement in the sale of ganja. According to the prosecution, on 08.10.2024, the petitioner (Accused No.1) and a co-accused Ramsundar were apprehended while selling ganja weighing 1.750 kilograms from / using the motorcycle KTM 200 Duke bearing Registration No. TN-69-BM-0420. The contraband was seized and the motorcycle was also secured and seized as the conveyance used in the commission of the NDPS offence. The respondent police subsequently produced the vehicle before the jurisdictional court and it was remanded as case property in RP.R.No.36 of 2025 dated 27.01.2025.
6. In the objection filed to the petitioner’s application for interim custody, the prosecution has specifically stated that the petitioner is Accused No.1 in Crime No.435 of 2024. At the time of arrest, he and the co-accused Ramsundar were selling ganja using the said KTM 200 Duke. Steps for confiscation of the vehicle have already been initiated. If the motorcycle is handed over to the petitioner, he may abscond to another State with the vehicle, thereby frustrating further proceedings and any potential order of confiscation. On this basis, the prosecution has strongly objected to handing over the vehicle to the petitioner.
Case of the Petitioner:
7. The petitioner’s case, as projected in Crl.M.P.No.2071 of 20
