IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 10 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 48744 of 2025 IKHTYAR MOHAMMAD Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Manoj Kushwaha - Advocate for the petitioner.

Smt. Pushpanjaly Dwivedi - PL for the respondent/State.

ORDER The instant petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), District Panna (M.P.) in SC NDPS No.07/2025, whereby the application filed by the applicant for release of the seized vehicle on supurdginama has been rejected.

2. The vehicle in question was i.e. Swift Dzire bearing registration number M.P.-53-CA-3599 seized in connection with Crime No. 138/2025 registered at Police Station Devendra Nagar, District Panna for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The applicant claims to be the registered owner of the said vehicle.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is not disputed that the applicant is not an accused in the aforesaid crime and there is no material on record to show his complicity in the alleged offence. The case of the applicant is that the vehicle was allegedly used by some other person without his knowledge for transporting contraband substance. The vehicle is lying in open premises of the police station and is exposed to natural wear and tear, and if allowed to remain idle for a long time, it will lose its value. It is further submitted that the applicant undertakes to produce the vehicle as and when directed by the trial Court and to abide by any stringent conditions imposed by this Court.

4. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer submitting that the vehicle is liable for confiscation under the provisions of the NDPS Act.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 (3) SCC 241, has categorically held that there is no absolute bar under the NDPS Act for grant of interim custody of a seized vehicle, and that confiscation under Section 60 of the NDPS Act is subject to final adjudication after trial. The Apex Court further observed that courts must not permit seized vehicles to lie idle and deteriorate in police custody and that interim release can be granted subject to stringent safeguards.

7. Similarly, The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Denansh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1032, in the matter of NDPS Act, has authoritatively laid down that although courts possess the power to release seized vehicles on interim custody, such discretion is not to be exercised mechanically, particularly in cases involving illegal transportation. The Apex Court has clearly held that if the owner was involved in the offence, or had knowledge of the illegal use, or permitted or facilitated such use of the vehicle, the vehicle ought not to be released on interim custody. Release can be considered only where the owner establishes bona fide ownership, absence of knowledge, and exercise of due diligence to prevent misuse.

8. In the present case, the applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle and is not arraigned as an accused. There is no material on record to prima facie demonstrate that he had knowledge of the alleged transportation of contraband substance. The vehicle is a movable property and its prolonged retention in open custody would cause irreparable loss.

9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Pa