Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70259
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A. K. R. Suresh, J
Amoha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu Rep. – Respondent
Crl.M.P.No.1533 of 2025
For the Appellant: Mr. B. Mahendarajan
For the Respondent: Mr. T. Senthil Kumar
A bona fide owner's right to interim custody of property cannot be denied based solely on speculative fears of future misuse; stringent conditions can safeguard against misuse while allowing property access.
Headnote:(A) NDPS Act, 1985 - Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)
(B) - Interim custody of seized vehicle - The petitioner, as a bona fide third-party owner, was denied interim custody due to speculative apprehension of future misuse by the prosecution - Court emphasized the need for preserving property while ensuring compliance with statutory provisions. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 29, 31)
(B) The Special Court’s refusal to grant interim custody based solely on conjectural fears was found to lack legal justification. (Paras 10, 21, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, owner of the vehicle, sought interim custody to avoid deterioration while asserting no involvement in the alleged offences. The vehicle was seized in relation to an NDPS Act offence.
Findings of Court:
The denial of custody was incorrect as it did not consider the statutory requirements and fears could be alleviated through conditions.
Issues: Whether denying interim custody based on speculation about future misuse is justified, considering the petitioner’s lack of involvement in the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts must exercise discretion to prevent property degradation while ensuring compliance with statutory provisions; speculation does not suffice to deny interim custody.
Result: Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seizure of vehicle linked to ndps offences and ownership concern. (Para 6) |
| 2. court denied interim custody due to prosecution's apprehensions. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 3. legal principles for interim custody and vehicle preservation outlined. (Para 18 , 24) |
| 4. speculative fears do not justify denial of property rights. (Para 22 , 27) |
| 5. petitioner entitled to interim custody with conditions. (Para 28 , 30) |
The respondent police, Kenikkarai Police Station, registered Crime No.98 of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B)7 and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985. According to the prosecution, the accused in the said crime were found in possession / transport of ganja in a quantity falling within the contour of Section 20(b)(ii)(B) (intermediate quantity). The case is that the accused used a Hero Pleasure two-wheeler bearing Reg. No. TN-65-BC-9316 in connection with the commission of the offence. The police seized the said two- wheeler, treating it as a conveyance used in the commission of the NDPS offence, and kept it in station custody as case property.
4. The respondent takes the position that the petitioner is connected with the accused and that the vehicle is part of the nexus used for the alleged NDPS activity, though the present materials placed before this Court do not indicate that she has been arrayed as an accused. In the written objection before the Special Court, the learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that if the vehicle is handed over to the petitioner on interim custody, she will commit similar kinds of offences, and that, therefore, the petition for interim custody should be dismissed. On the basis of this apprehension, the prosecution opposed release of the two-wheeler.
Case of the Petitioner:
5. The case of the petitioner, as disclosed in Crl.M.P.No.1533 of 2025 and reiterated in this revision, is as follows:
The petitioner is the third-party claimant and registered owner of the two-wheeler Hero Pleasure bearing Registration No. TN-65-BC-9316. The vehicle stands in her name. She states that the respondent / complainant has registered a false case and, in that context, has recovered and seized her two-wheeler. The petitioner asserts that the two-wheeler is vital for her livelihood. She uses it for her daily commute / official and personal purposes, and without the vehicle, she faces severe hardship.
6. The case in Crime No.98 of 2025 has been registered for offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 25 NDPS Act against the accused; the vehicle was seized and is kept in the police station. The petitioner maintains that she had no role in the alleged offences and is not an accused. The vehicle is kept in an open yard, exposed to heat, rain and other natural elements. Over time, such exposure leads to rapid deterioration, affecting its mechanical condition and market value. If the vehicle is kept indefinitely in police custody, it will eventually become unfit for use and practically valueless.
7. She contends that, as the owner of the vehicle and a third party to the alleged crime, she is entitled to seek interim custody, subject to whatever conditions the Court may impose, in order to prevent needless destruction of her property and to continue earning her livelihood. On this basis, the petitioner prayed before the Special Court, and now before this Court, for interim custody of the two-wheeler.
Gist of the Impugned Order:
8. By order dated 26.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1533 of 2025, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge / Presiding Officer, Special Court for E.C. & NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai, dismissed the petitioner’s application. The reasoning, in substance, is:
The vehicle bearing Reg. No. TN-65-BC-9316 was seized in Crime No.98 of 2025 in connection with alleged offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 25 NDPS Act. The prosecution has taken the stand that if the two-wheeler is returned to the petitioner on interim custody, she will commit similar kinds of offences in
