steep depreciation in value. He contends that, if the vehicle is kept unused in such conditions for long, it will become unfit for road use, causing serious financial loss and hardship to him.

4. The petitioner further states that he is ready and willing to produce the vehicle whenever required by the Court or the Investigating Officer, that he will abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed, including execution of bonds, prohibition on alienation, and ensuring availability of the vehicle for confiscation if ultimately ordered and that, in these circumstances, he prayed that the vehicle be produced before the Court and returned to him on interim custody.

Case of the Prosecution:

5. The respondent police, in their objection, have stated that the petitioner is the accused in Crime No.29 of 2025. It is alleged that at the time of arrest, the petitioner/accused was engaged in selling 1.250 kilograms of ganja and that the said Bajaj two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-74-BB-5943 was the conveyance used by him for transporting and selling the contraband.

6. On that basis, the prosecution asserts that the vehicle is indisputably a conveyance used in the commission of an NDPS offence and is, therefore, liable to confiscation in terms of the NDPS Act. It is also stated that steps have already been taken towards confiscation of the vehicle. The prosecution contends that, if the vehicle is handed over to the petitioner at this stage, there is a genuine apprehension that he may abscond to another State along with the vehicle or otherwise frustrate confiscation and trial. On these grounds, the prosecution has strongly objected to returning the vehicle on interim custody and has prayed for dismissal of the application.

Gist of the Impugned Order:

7. By the impugned order dated 11.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1665 of

2025, the learned Principal Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. The learned Special Judge appears to have mainly proceeded on the footing that the petitioner is the accused in Crime No.29 of 2025, that the vehicle in question was allegedly used for selling ganja, that steps for confiscation have been initiated and that the release of the vehicle at this stage might enable the petitioner to abscond or to defeat the confiscation proceedings.

8. The order does not advert to the ambit and scope of Sections

497 and 503 of the BNSS, nor does it discuss the scheme and safeguards under Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act. There is no reference to the effect of the judgments in Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu¹ or Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam² or to the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s repeated insistence in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat³ and Sainaba v. State of Kerala, [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1784] that vehicles should not be allowed to rot in police or Court custody. The impugned order thus rests primarily on the petitioner’s accused status and on apprehensions of possible misuse or non-production.

Grounds of Revision:

9. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order on several grounds. It is contended that the trial Court erred in proceeding on the assumption that the NDPS Act and contemplated confiscation oust its jurisdiction to grant interim custody under Sections 497 and 503 BNSS. It is further contended that the Court failed to appreciate that Sections

1 2025 SCC OnLine 2276

2 2025 INSC 32

3 (2002) 10 SCC 283

36-C and 51 of the NDPS Act make the procedural provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now BNSS, applicable to NDPS proceedings, including Sections 497 and 503, save where inconsistent with the NDPS Act.

10. The petitioner submits that Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and the 2022 Rules deal only with inventory, sampling, certification and disposal procedure, and not with the question whether the Court can, in the interim, entrust custody of the vehicle to the owner subject to conditions.

11. It is further contended that the impugned order is contrary to the ratio of the