was seized along with contraband, and was treated as case property /

conveyance used in the commission of the alleged NDPS offence.

3. The case materials indicate that the motorcycle belongs to the present petitioner, who had given it to Accused No.1. The prosecution does not say that the petitioner is an accused; its objection is based on the use of the vehicle by Accused No.1. It is further stated in the reply that on 17.12.2024, Accused No.3 / Kamesh was also arrested and examined; from the statements of accused persons, the police infer that Accused No.1 used the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-59-DY-0639 for selling ganja. The Accused No.1 has been released on bail, but the vehicle remains in station custody.

4. The prosecution contends that if the motorcycle is handed over to the petitioner, there is a likelihood that he may: help the accused to re-engage in similar NDPS activities using the vehicle; and sell the vehicle, thereby defeating any future order of confiscation. On these bases, the prosecution strongly objects to interim release of the vehicle.

Case of the Petitioner:

5. The petitioner’s case, as set out in Crl.M.P.No.564 of 2025 and reiterated before this Court, is as follows:

The petitioner is the owner of the Yamaha MT motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-59-DY-0639. The Registration Certificate stands in his name. He had given the two-wheeler to Accused No.1 / Maduraiveeran, who is known to him. Thereafter, a case in Crime No. 362 of 2024 was registered against Accused No.1 and others, and the said vehicle was seized as part of the case. Accused No.1 has since been released on bail, whereas the vehicle remains remanded to station custody. The motorcycle has been in the custody of the respondent police since 14.12.2024. It is lying in the open, and is subject to natural decay due to rain, sunlight, and other elements. If it continues to be kept in that condition, it will rapidly lose its value, become mechanically unsound and ultimately useless.

6. The petitioner asserts that he has no role in the alleged NDPS offence, and that he had given the vehicle to Accused No.1 in the ordinary course; he is not arrayed as an accused in the case. He contends that, as the registered owner, he is entitled to seek interim custody of the vehicle, particularly when its continued retention in open police custody serves no useful purpose and results in economic waste. The petitioner undertakes to produce the vehicle whenever required, and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. On these grounds, he seeks release of the motorcycle on interim custody.

Gist of the Impugned Order:

7. By order dated 20.03.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.564 of 2025, the learned Principal Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, dismissed the petitioner’s application. The gist of the reasoning, as can be gathered from the order and pleadings, is:

The motorcycle bearing Reg. No. TN-59-DY-0639 Yamaha MT was seized in connection with Crime No.362 of 2024, in which it is alleged that Accused No.1 / Maduraiveeran used the vehicle for selling ganja. The Accused No.1 has been released on bail, but the vehicle continues to be treated as a material object / case property and is kept in police station custody. The police claim that, based on the enquiry of Accused No.3 and others, it has emerged that Accused No.1 extensively used the said vehicle for sale of ganja.

8. The Court accepted the prosecution’s apprehension that if the vehicle is handed over to the petitioner, he may assist in similar offences by making it available for such use, or he may sell the vehicle, thereby jeopardising the prosecution’s ability to secure its production for trial and possible confiscation. Having regard to these apprehensions, and the nature of the NDPS offence, the learned Special Judge refused to grant interim custody and dismissed the petition.

Grounds of Revision:

9. The petitioner challenges the impugned order on the following grounds:

The learned Special Judge erre