Interim custody of a seized vehicle cannot be denied solely due to co-ownership by an accused under specific circumstances.

1] This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2025 / 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 16/06/2025 passed in MJCR No.302/2025 by Special Judge, NDPS Atc, Neemuch (M.P.) in Crime No.05/2025 whereby the learned Judge has rejected the petitioners' application preferred under Section 497/503 of BNSS, 2023 for supurdgi of their vehicle Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No.MP-44-ZB-9463.

2] The case of the petitioners is that their vehicle was apprehended on 13/01/2025 along with 40.300 kg of poppy straw and it was alleged that the vehicle belong to the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 and 3 Late Lal Singh Charan and it was alleged that the vehicle was given by the deceased Lal Singh Charan to petitioner No.2. The first application for supurdgi was filed by petitioner No.1 only, which has been rejected on the ground that all the co-owners of the vehicle have not been made parties despite the fact that petitioner No.2, who is also an accused in Signature Not Verified the case is also a co-owner and thus, when the second application was filed by all the co-owners, it has been rejected on 16/06/2025 while relying upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey vs. The State of Assam Criminal Appeal No.87/2025 dated 07/01/2025 and the decision in the case of Union of India vs. Baluram Criminal Revision No.2462/2023 dated 19/05/2025 and Tukaram vs. State of M.P. M.Cr.C. No.14829/2025 dated 08/04/2025, in which, it has been opined that in the cases of NDPS Act, where the vehicle owner himself is the accused. In such circumstances, the vehicle could not be given on interim supurdgi, and hence, the application has been rejected.

3] Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the vehicle is required by the petitioners to transport the agricultural goods and it is not that only petitioner No.2 is the owner of the vehicle, whereas, petitioners No.2 and 3 are also co-owners being legal representatives of the deceased Lal Singh Charan, who were also not present on the spot when the incident took place.

4] Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no interference is made out.

5] Heard. On due consideration of rival submissions and on perusal of the case diary and taking note of the fact that petitioner No.2 Abhishek S/o Late Lal Singh Charan has already been released on bail as the quantity of contraband seized was less than the commercial quantity, for which, no minimum sentence is provided. In such circumstances, when the vehicle is also owned by petitioners No.1 and 3, this Court finds that it would not be justifiable to reject the application only because the petitioner No.2 is also co-owner of the vehicle.

Signature Not Verified

6] Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16/06/2025 is hereby set aside, the petition stands allowed, and it is directed that upon petitioners' furnishing adequate surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, the vehicle in question be given to the petitioners. It is made clear that the vehicle in question shall not be transferred/disposed of or modified in any manner except with the written permission of the trial court, and shall be produced before the trial Court as and when directed.

7] Petition stands allowed and disposed of.