Mere ownership of a vehicle in an NDPS case does not automatically establish liability without proof of conscious knowledge or involvement, justifying the release of the vehicle to the registered owner on interim custody.

Order

1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 31.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases (Additional Sessions Judge), Shahpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal Misc. Application No.02/2026 pertaining to FIR No.160/2025 registered at Police Station Fuliya Kalan, Bhilwara whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle in question (Maruti Alto) bearing registration No.RJ 51 CA 6627 has been declined.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the owner of the vehicle in question which has been seized by the Police Officers. He further submits that the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle in question, is the person best entitled to get back the possession of the seized property. There is no other person claiming supurdagi of the same.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the instant criminal revision petition.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. At the time when the alleged recovery came to be effected, the petitioner was not there with the vehicle, instead his son was plying. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused simply of his being registered owner of the vehicle. There is a plea that he was not having knowledge that his son would use the vehicle for the purpose of transportation of contraband. The plea has a force. Looking to the cordial relationship between the father and the son and placing reliance upon the judgment Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2011 SC 77 decided on 29.10.2010, it can safely be inferred that in absence of conscious knowledge or involvement, mere ownership of the vehicle would not ipso facto render the petitioner liable for the alleged offence.

5. Considering the submissions and following the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat , reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 and the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2005/2022 [SLP (Crl.) No.7280/2022) titled as Sainaba Vs. The State of Kerala & Anr., wherein, the vehicle involved in a crime under NDPS Act was directed to be released on terms and conditions to be determined by the Special Court, the revision petition is allowed and this Court deems it just and appropriate to release the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner on interim custody till conclusion of the trial provided he furnishes a Supurdaginama of Rs. 2,00,000/- and surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below.