3. The motorcycle was allegedly used as the conveyance for carrying the contraband and for transporting it to buyers. The police intercepted the vehicle, seized 4.100 kg of ganja, and took the vehicle into custody. The case is stated to be under investigation; final report has not yet been filed. The prosecution asserts that if the motorcycle is returned to the petitioner, there is a real apprehension that he may not produce the vehicle in future for the purposes of evidence and possible confiscation and that the release of the vehicle at this stage would prejudice the ongoing investigation. On these grounds, the respondent strongly opposed interim release of the vehicle.

Case of the Petitioner:

4. The case of the petitioner, as pleaded in Crl.M.P.No.1359 of

2025 and articulated in this revision, is: the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. TN-57-BR-9907 Bajaj KTM 200, valued at about Rs.1,50,000/-. He states that he had borrowed / given the vehicle to a friend, who is also an accused in this case, and that the vehicle is now seized in connection with Crime No.134 of 2025. He admits that he has been arrayed as an accused, but asserts that the matter is still at the investigation stage and that his guilt is yet to be established.

5. The motorcycle is presently kept in the police station, exposed to sun, rain, and other natural elements, and is thus subject to rapid natural decay. If continued to be kept in open custody, the vehicle will be rendered useless and its value will be significantly diminished. The petitioner contends that as the owner, he is entitled to seek interim custody of the vehicle, particularly when the same can be produced as required and the interests of prosecution can be safeguarded by imposing conditions. He, therefore, prayed for interim release of the vehicle to his custody, contending that prolonged detention serves no useful purpose and causes him substantial financial loss.

Gist of the Impugned Order

6. By order dated 17.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1359 of 2025, the learned Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, dismissed the petitioner’s application for interim custody. The gist of the reasoning is: The motorcycle bearing Reg. No. TN-57-BR-9907 is involved in Crime No.134 of 2025 relating to sale of ganja and is a material object in the NDPS case. The petitioner himself is an accused in the said crime. Given the nature of the allegation – that the vehicle was used for selling ganja – it would not be appropriate to hand over the vehicle to him during pendency of investigation. The investigation is still pending; if the vehicle is returned to the petitioner, there is no guarantee that he would produce it as and when required by the Court. In view of the seriousness of the offence and the ongoing investigation, the Court found it unsafe to grant interim custody and, therefore, dismissed the petition.

Grounds of Revision:

7. The petitioner challenges the impugned order on the following grounds: The learned Special Court erred in assuming that, merely because the petitioner is an accused, he is automatically disentitled to interim custody of the vehicle. There is no such absolute bar in the NDPS Act. The learned Trial Judge failed to consider the statutory scheme of the NDPS Act, particularly Sections 36-C, 51, 60(3) and 63, and the general powers under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., 1973, / Sections 497 and 503 BNSS relating to interim custody of seized property. The learned Trial Court did not advert to or apply the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat¹, Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam², and Denash v.

1 (2002) 10 SCC 283

2 2025 INSC 32 State of Tamil Nadu³, which recognises the power of criminal Courts to grant interim custody of vehicles to their owners, even in cases involving serious offences, subject to safeguards.

8. The impugned order is cryptic and does not weigh the economic hardship and potential irreparable loss to the pet