motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-CA-8142. Upon search, the police allegedly found ganja in intermediate quantity in his possession / in connection with the use of the said motorcycle. The contraband was seized and the motorcycle was treated as the conveyance used for transporting ganja. The vehicle was produced before the jurisdictional Court and is presently kept in the custody of the Court / police and, as is common to such cases, remains in long-term open-area custody, exposed to weather conditions. The investigation is stated to be pending.

Case of the Petitioner:

3. The petitioner contended before the learned Trial Court that he is the registered owner of the Hero Splendor Plus motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-CA-8142. He asserted that the said vehicle is essential for his daily mobility and for his livelihood, inasmuch as it is used by him to commute for work and to attend to his day-to-day affairs. He further pleaded that ever since the seizure, the motorcycle has been lying idle in the premises of the police station without proper maintenance, exposed to rain, sun and other natural elements, resulting in rapid deterioration of its mechanical condition and market value.

4. The petitioner gave an undertaking that he would produce the motorcycle before the Court or the Investigating Officer as and when required, that he would not alienate or encumber the vehicle, and that he would not permit its use for any unlawful purpose. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat¹ and Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam² to contend that vehicles should not be allowed to rot in police custody, and therefore sought interim custody of the motorcycle by invoking the powers of the Court under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS, subject to such conditions as may be imposed.

Gist of the Impugned Order:

5. By the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.2680 of

2025, the learned Additional District Judge / Presiding Officer, Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for interim custody. A reading of the order shows that the Court mainly proceeded on the reasoning that, since the petitioner himself is an accused in the NDPS case and the vehicle is allegedly involved in the commission of the offence, the release of the

1 (2002) 10 SCC 283

2 2025 INSC 32 motorcycle on interim custody would be inappropriate and may lead to misuse or possible sale of the vehicle. The Court also appears to have accepted the apprehension that the petitioner may fail to produce the vehicle at a later stage, thereby hampering the trial and any prospective confiscation.

6. Significantly, the trial Court did not examine the effect of Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act, did not discuss the application of Sections 36-C and 51 of the NDPS Act which import the Cr.P.C./BNSS into NDPS proceedings, and did not advert to the principles laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat³, Sainaba v. State of Kerala, [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1784], Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam⁵, Tarun Kumar Majhi v. State of West Bengal⁶ and Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu⁷, nor did it undertake a balancing exercise between the prosecutorial interest and the need to preserve the value of the seized property. 3 (2002) 10 SCC 283

5 2025 INSC 32

6 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2362

7 2025 SCC OnLine 2276 Grounds of Revision:

7. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on several grounds. It is contended that the trial Court has incorrectly treated the mere fact of seizure under the NDPS Act and the petitioner’s status as an accused as creating an absolute bar to interim custody, which is legally unsustainable. It is urged that the Court failed to recognise that Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act confers on the owner a substantive right, at the stage of confiscation, to demonstrate lack of knowledge or connivance and that Section 63 mandates a judicial enquiry befor