Seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations for prolonged periods; instead, they should be released on interim custody (supurdginama) subject to appropriate conditions to prevent deterioration of the asset during trial.

Order

1. By way of filing of the instant miscellaneous petition under Section 528 BNSS, challenge has been made to the order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases and Additional Sessions Judge No.01, Nagaur in Criminal Misc. Case No.22/2026 pertaining to FIR No.32/2025 registered at Police Station Mundwa, District Nagaur for offences under Sections 8/21 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 497 BNSS for release of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-31-SU-6965, Chassis No. MA1TA2YS2R2B30593 and Engine No. YSR4B80693 on supurdginama came to be dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question which has been seized by the police in connection with the aforesaid FIR. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not found present at the spot and he has been implicated in the case merely on the ground that he is the registered owner of the said vehicle. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged illegal transportation of contraband in the vehicle. It is also contended that the vehicle is lying stationed at the police station and if allowed to remain there for a prolonged period, the same would deteriorate in condition and lose its value. The petitioner undertakes to abide by all such conditions as may be imposed by this Court.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the miscellaneous petition.

4. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material available on record.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat , reported in AIR 2003 SC 638, has held that seized vehicles should not be allowed to remain stationed at police stations for long periods and appropriate orders for interim custody should ordinarily be passed. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sainaba Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.2005/2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7280/2022 decided on 18.11.2022, wherein release of the vehicle involved in an NDPS case was directed subject to appropriate terms and conditions.

6. In view of the aforesaid legal position and considering the fact that the vehicle in question is lying seized at the police station, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the same stationed there during pendency of the trial.

7. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases and Additional Sessions Judge No.01, Nagaur is set aside. It is directed that the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-31-SU-6965, Chassis No. MA1TA2YS2R2B30593 and Engine No. YSR4B80693 shall be released in favour of the petitioner on interim custody till conclusion of the trial, provided that the petitioner furnishes a supurdginama of Rs.10,00,000/- along with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

8. Before releasing the vehicle, the trial court shall ensure that its photographs and identification particulars are duly taken and kept on record. The petitioner shall not transfer the ownership of the vehicle, alter its identification marks or use the same for commission of any offence during the period it remains on supurdginama.