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 Gujarat¹, Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam², and Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu³, 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.

1 (2002) 10 SCC 283

2 2025 INSC 32

3 2025 SCC OnLine 2276

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 08.10.2