No.TN-74-BB-8643 and (ii) a Jawa Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-74-BD-3600. Both vehicles were seized during investigation as conveyances used in the commission of the alleged NDPS offence. The vehicles are presently under the custody of the respondent police /

before the jurisdictional Special Court as case properties.

Case of the Petitioner:

3. The petitioner, in Crl.M.P.No.1521 of 2025, asserted that he is the rightful and registered owner of the Maruti Swift Car bearing Registration No.TN-74-BB-8643 and the Jawa Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-74-BD-3600. He characterised the said vehicles as his valuable movable properties which are necessary for his daily use and livelihood. He stated that both vehicles are presently kept in the open in the police station or court campus, exposed to sun, rain and other natural elements, resulting in rapid deterioration of their mechanical condition and market value.

4. The petitioner further submitted that, beyond what is alleged in the FIR and investigation, the question of his guilt or innocence is a matter that lies within the domain of the trial Court and that no adverse conclusion can be drawn against him at this stage so as to justify destruction of his property by neglect. He contended that, if the vehicles continue to remain idle and unused for a prolonged period, they will become unfit for road use and virtually valueless, causing him grave hardship and substantial financial loss. He gave an undertaking to the effect that he would produce the vehicles whenever directed by the trial Court, that he would not alienate or encumber the same, and that he would abide by any stringent conditions which the Court may impose. On this basis, he prayed for interim custody of both vehicles under the powers corresponding to Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. (now Sections

497 and 503 BNSS).

Stand of the Prosecution before the learned Trial Court:

5. The respondent police filed objections before the trial Court and opposed the petition. They reiterated that the petitioner is Accused No.1 in Crime No.67 of 2025 and that, at the time of arrest, the petitioner and the co-accused were allegedly selling ganja by using the very same car and motorcycle which are now sought to be released. It was contended that if the vehicles are returned to the petitioner, there exists a likelihood that he may abscond to another State along with the vehicles, thereby hampering the progress of the prosecution. It was further contended that there is an apprehension that the petitioner may sell the vehicles, which would frustrate any future order of confiscation. On these grounds, the prosecution strongly objected to handing over either of the vehicles to the petitioner on interim custody.

Gist of the Impugned Order:

6. By the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1521 of

2025, the learned Principal Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. The learned Special Judge emphasised that the petitioner is Accused No.1 in the case and that both the Maruti Swift Car and the Jawa Motorcycle were allegedly used in the sale of ganja. The Court accepted the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that, if the vehicles were returned, the petitioner might abscond with them or sell them, thereby affecting the conduct of the trial and potential confiscation of the vehicles at a later stage.

7. However, a reading of the impugned order reveals that the learned Special Judge did not examine the scope and applicability of Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS (corresponding to Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C.), did not consider the legal position clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu¹, Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam², Sainaba v. State of Kerala, [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1784], Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat⁴ or Tarun Kumar Majhi v. State of West Bengal⁵. The order does not reflect any balancing of the hardship to the owner arising from prolonged id