Courts retain discretion under BNSS Sections 497/503 to grant interim custody of NDPS-seized vehicles to bona fide innocent owners despite 2022 Rules.

ORDER

The present criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the docket order dated 02.02.2026 in Crl.MP.SR.No.279 of 2026, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Puducherry and to consequently, return the vehicle bearing Registration No.PY-05-VE-0753 Renault Triber RXL MT 1L ECE Car bearing Chasis No.MEERBC008R3202258 & Engine No.B4DF424E075522 Colour Stealth Black seized by the respondent police in connection with Crime No.03 of 2026.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that based on secret information received by the respondent police with regard to sale of contraband by the accused persons, the respondent seized several contrabands, and vehicle from the accused persons and registered the present complaint in Crime No.03 of 2026 for the offences under Sections 20(b) (ii) (B), r/w 8(c) of the NDPS Act, and Section 77 of Juvenile Justice Act and Sections 123, 3(5) of BNS. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.PY-05-VE-0753 and the same was seized by the respondent-police in connection with Crime No.03 of 2026 and the subject vehicle has been used by the accused persons without his knowledge. He further submitted that the petitioner is in no way connected with the crime and is not arrayed as an accused in the offence. Therefore, seeking interim custody of the said vehicle, a petition under Section 497 r/w. 503 of BNSS was filed before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.SR.No.279 of 2026. However, the trial Court returned the said petition by holding as under:

“Property is vehicle. As per amended rules of NDPS Act, this petition is not maintainable under NDPS Act. Hence the petition is returned.”

3.1. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with the present criminal original petition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Denash Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu in SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had ordered for release of vehicle. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the impugned docket order dated 02.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.SR.No.279 of 2026 and to consequently, return the vehicle bearing Registration No.PY-05-VE-0753 seized by the respondent police in connection with Crime No.03 of 2026, in favour of the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, though did not dispute the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, by relying on the very same decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Denash’s case (supra) submitted that the exercise of such judicial discretion is to be guided by the facts and circumstances of each case and should be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the rights of a bona fide owner and at the same time balancing the need for detention of the vehicle/conveyance in appropriate cases. He further submitted that the petitioner is bound to prove before the trial court that the subject vehicle has been used by the accused persons without his knowledge.

4.1. He also submitted that the involvement or otherwise of the petitioner would be known only after the investigation is completed and if the vehicle is released, it may be used for similar purpose of trafficking of narcotic substances and, appreciating all the aforesaid facts, the trial court had rejected the claim for interim custody of the vehicle and, therefore, no interference is warranted with the said decision and, accordingly, seeks dismissal of the present petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel on