IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No . 3717 of 202 6 K.Karuppannan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, PEW, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, Erode.

2.The Inspector of Police Prohibition and Enforcement Wing (PEW), Gobi PS. ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C, to set aside the Docket Order in Criminal M.P.SR.488 of 2026 in Unnumbered C.P.No. of 2026 dated 5.2.2026 on the file of the Additional District Judge, (To try cases under Essential Commodities Act), Coimbatore, and thereby directing the learned Additional District Judge, Coimbatore to take the application on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Suresh For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the docket order dated 05.02.2026, returning the petition filed by the petitioner seeking interim custody of the vehicle (Container Lorry) bearing registration No.TN 28 BL 3669.

2. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are as follows:-

2.1. The petitioner is the owner of the Container Lorry bearing registration No.TN 28 BL 3669, which was seized by the respondent police in connection with Crime No.31 of 2026 registered on the file of the respondent for the offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

2.2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section

497 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking interim custody of his vehicle, whereas, the learned Additional District Judge, (To try cases under Essential Commodities Act), Coimbatore, has returned the petition on 05.02.2026.

2.3. As per the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Denash vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2276, the petition seeking interim custody of the vehicle is maintainable. Hence, he prayed that the order of return dated 05.02.2026 may be set aside.

3. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that though the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, he is not an accused in this case.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. In Denash (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court had passed an order of interim custody of the vehicle to the owner, however, subject to four scenarios in which the contraband is seized from the conveyance. Thus, a petition for interim custody of the vehicle in an NDPS case is maintainable. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment in Denash (supra), are extracted hereunder:-

“29. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that the Rules of 2022 cannot be interpreted as divesting the Special Courts of their jurisdiction to entertain an application for interim custody or release of a seized conveyance under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC [Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS]. The authority of the Special Court to pass appropriate orders for interim custody during the pendency of the trial, as well as to make final determination upon its conclusion, continues to operate independently of the disposal mechanism envisaged under the said Rules. Any interpretation to the contrary would lead to anomalous and unjust consequences by depriving a bona fide owner of his property without judicial scrutiny or an opportunity of hearing, an outcome wholly inconsistent with the statutory scheme of the NDPS Act and contrary to the fundamental principles of natural justice.

30. Hence, we are of the considered view that the interpretation given by the High Court, holding that pursuant to the promulgation of the Rules of 2022, all other forums, including the Special Court, are divested of the jurisdiction to decide the fate of a seized conveyance under the NDPS Act and that the aggrieved person must necessarily approach the Drug Disp