1. Petition challenging rejection of vehicle supurdagi application under BNSS 2023 in NDPS Act case involving ganja recovery. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 16809
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J
Khurshid – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.7517/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gajender Singh Rathore
For the Respondents: Vivek Choudhary, PP
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gajender Singh Rathore
For the Respondents: Vivek Choudhary, PP
A vehicle seized under the NDPS Act cannot be released on supurdagi if the registered owner is an accused and the contraband was recovered from their possession or their agent's possession, as per the guidelines formulated by the Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam.
Headnote:(A) Release of Vehicle on Supurdagi - NDPS Act - Criteria for release - Where the registered owner of the vehicle is arrayed as an accused and contraband is recovered from the vehicle, the owner falls under scenarios where release is generally not permitted until reverse burden of proof is discharged. (Para 6, 8)
(B) Judicial Precedent - Application of Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assam - Four scenarios for seizure from conveyances: (i) owner in possession, (ii) agent in possession, (iii) stolen vehicle, (iv) third-party occupant. Release is normally permissible only in the latter two scenarios where the owner is not an accused. (Para 6, 7)
Issues: Whether the petitioner, being the registered owner and an accused in an NDPS case where contraband was recovered from his vehicle, is entitled to the release of the vehicle on supurdagi.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought vehicle release as registered owner; State opposed due to contraband recovery and accused status. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Court applied Bishwajit Dey four-scenario test; held petitioner falls in first scenario as owner-accused with contraband recovery. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 )
4. Vehicle involved in NDPS offence cannot be released on supurdagi when owner is accused and contraband recovered from his possession. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Criminal misc. petition dismissed; impugned order rejecting supurdagi upheld; stay and pending applications dismissed. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. What are the four scenarios for vehicle release on supurdagi in NDPS cases?
First two scenarios (owner possession or agent possession) bar release; last two (stolen vehicle or third-party occupant) permit release. (Para 6 )
7. When can a vehicle seized under NDPS Act be released on supurdagi?
Vehicle may be released only in scenarios three (stolen vehicle) or four (third-party occupant without owner knowledge) as per Bishwajit Dey. (Para 6 , 7 )
8. Does registered ownership alone entitle a vehicle owner to supurdagi in NDPS cases?
No, registered ownership alone does not entitle release; the court must examine which Bishwajit Dey scenario applies. (Para 5 , 6 )
9. What is the reverse burden of proof under NDPS Act for vehicle release?
In first two scenarios, accused-owner must discharge reverse burden before vehicle can be released on supurdagi. (Para 6 )
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
02/12/2025
1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Alwar by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 497 read with Section 503 BNSS, 2023 seeking supurdagi of the seized subject vehicle bearing No.DL-3-CBV-6509, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR No.81/2024 was registered with Police Station Badodamev, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 8, 20 & 25 of the NDPS Act, wherein the subject vehicle in question was seized and the petitioner is the registered owner of the subject vehicle. Learned counsel submits that now investigation is completed and the subject vehicle is not required for the purpose of investigation, therefore, the subject vehicle in question be released on supurdagi. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deepu Vs. State of Rajasthan through P.P. reported in 2024 (2) Cri.L.R. (Raj.) 751 and Devigan Urf Degen Verman Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2021(1) Cri.L.R. (Raj.) 252.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that huge quantity of contraband, i.e., 52 kg 267 gms of Ganja has been recovered from the subject vehicle in question and the petitioner is the registered owner of the subject vehicle and he has been arrayed as an accused in the aforesaid FIR. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get the supurdagi of the subject vehicle in question and the Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the aforesaid application submitted by the petitioner.
4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.
5. Perusal of the record indicates that an FIR bearing No.81/2024 was registered with Police Station Badodamev, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 8, 20 & 25 of the NDPS Act, wherein it has been alleged that on inspection of Swift Dzire Car bearing No.DL-3-CBV-6509, 52 kg 267 gms of Ganja was recovered and the petitioner has been charge-sheeted along-with co-accused persons for the above stated offences. Though the petitioner is claiming himself as the registered owner of the subject vehicle. However, now the question before this Court is whether the vehicle in question can be released on supurdagi simply on the ground that the petitioner is a registered owner.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam (Criminal Appeal No.87/2025) decided on 07.01.2025 has formulated four scenarios and it has been held that if the vehicle is found to be involved in the first and second scenarios, it cannot be released and if the vehicle is found to be involved in third and four scenarios, appropriate orders can be passed by the Court for releasing the same on 'Supurdagi' and it has been held in para 29 and 30 as under:-
"29. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized / recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner's knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios,
