Interim custody of seized vehicles under NDPS Act is permissible even when liable for confiscation, based on ownership and provided conditions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL ON THE 30^th OF JULY, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1301 of 2025 ANIKET NANDA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Rajesh Kumar Namdeo - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri N. S. Solanki - Panel Lawyer for respondent/ State.

ORDER Heard.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 for taking the vehicle Motorcycle bearing registration No.MP-51-MK- 2086 on supurdgi against the order dated 20.2.2025 passed in Special Case NDPS No. 08/2024 by Special Judge (NDPS), District Mandla (M.P.), whereby learned Special Judge rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 497 r/w Section 503 of BNSS, 2023 to get the interim custody of the Motorcycle bearing registration No.MP- 51-MK-2086, which was seized by the Police Station Aarkshi Kendra Tikriya, District Mandla in Crime No.155/2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 8 /20 of NDPS Act .

2. Brief facts of the case which are relevant to the disposal of this petition are that, Police Station Tikariya, District Mandla has seized a Motorcycle bearing registration No.MP-51-MK-2086, in respect of Crime No. 155/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 8 /20 of NDPS Act . After investigation police filed the charge sheet and on that charge sheet, Special Case NDPS No. 08/2024 was registered which is pending before Special Judge (NDPS), District Mandla. During Signature Not Verified pendency of case, the applicant, who is the registered owner of the said vehicle filed an application under 497 read with Section 503 of BNSS, 2023 before Special Judge (NDPS), Mandla for getting interim custody of the said vehicle. The learned Special Judge rejected the application vide order dated 20.2.2025. Being aggrieved by that order, applicant filed this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the registered owner of the said Motorcycle bearing registration No.MP-51-MK-2086, so he is entitled to get the custody of said Car. He further submitted that learned Special Judge committed mistake in rejecting the prayer of the applicant and not giving the said vehicle in custody. In this regard, counsel has relied on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2003 SC 638 and Tikeshwar Singh Vs. State of Chhatishgarh ( Cri.Misc. Petition No.1374/2020 ), whereby the Court held that whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep seized vehicle at Police Stations for long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking bond and guarantee as well as security for return of said vehicle, if required at any point of time. Hence, counsel prayed that the application be allowed.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the submissions of the counsel for the applicant and has submitted that the said vehicle was seized for carrying ganja (contraband), therefore, trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the applicant.

5. This Court has gone through the record and arguments put-forth by both the parties. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the applicant is the registered owner of the seized vehicle. There is no provision in the NDPS Act to restrict the power of the trial Court to release the vehicle in interim custody. It has been held by this Court in the case of Pandurang Kadam vs State of M.P. 2005 (2) ANJ MP 351, that notwithstanding Signature Not Verified the fact that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act , it may be released in interim custody in appropriate cases. Thus, interim custody should not be denied to the owner of the vehicle, simply because it is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act . The High Court of Tripura, Agartala in th