Interim custody of a vehicle cannot be denied solely due to the possibility of confiscation under the NDPS Act; the owner's rights must be recognized pending trial.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 18 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41831 of 2025 SHIVSHAMBHU SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ankita Mathur - GA appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

ORDER The present petition under section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing of the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by Special Judge, Shivpuri N.D.P.S. Act in M.J.C.R./353/2025, whereby an application under Sections 497/503 of BNSS filed by the petitioner for release of his vehicle bearing registration No.MP 33 M Q- 5287, has been dismissed.

The facts in brief to decide this petition are that upon information received from informant, concerning Police Station along with police force stopped a motorcycle bearing registration No.MP 33 M Q- 5287 which was being driven by accused Shivambhu Sharam and from the present applicant 1 Kg and 700 gm ganja was seized. Thereafter, an FIR has been registered at crime no.188/2025 under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act at Police Station - Bhonti, District - Shivpuri (M.P.). The petitioner, who is the owner of said motorcycle moved an application under Sections 497/503 of BNSS for Signature Not Verified releasing of the above vehicle which was dismissed by the learned trial Court by impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for interim custody of the subject vehicle submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and therefore, he is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat , reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, to contend that the Supreme court has held that the vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful. He has also placed reliance on order passed by this Court in the case of Nirmal Singh V/s. State of M.P. (CRR No.4669/2019 decided on 17.12.2019) in which, in the similar facts and circumstances, this Court has directed to release the vehicle on 'Supurdiginama'.

Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate opposes the revision and prays its rejection.

U/s. 60 of the NDPS Act , the vehicle involved in the offence under the NDPS Act is liable to be confiscated. U/s. 63, in the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the Court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation u/s. 60 or Section 61 or Section 62 of the Act. Therefore, the proceedings of confiscation is liable to be initiated after conclusion of the trial as per discretion of the Court. The applicant is a registered owner of the vehicle as per the prosecution story, therefore, the said vehicle can be Signature Not Verified released to him during pendency of the trial.

It is also settled legal proposition of law that interim custody of the vehicle cannot be denied on the ground that it is liable to be confiscated, in case the offence is proved against the accused.

Keeping in mind the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), there is no reason to deny interim custody of the vehicle to the owner or person entitled to get possession of the vehicle. If the vehicle is allowed to be kept in the police station for an indefinite period, then value of the vehicle shall be diminished substantially and it may not remain in usable condition. In the above circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated

21.07.2025 passed by learned trial court is set aside and motorcycle bearing Registration No. MP 33 M Q- 5287 is ordered to be released on 'supurdaginama' in favour of the petitioner till completion of the trial on the followi