Registered owners of vehicles seized in criminal cases, including NDPS cases, are generally entitled to interim release (Supurdgi) to prevent the vehicle from deteriorating in police custody, provided appropriate bonds and conditions are met.

Order

1. By way of filing of the instant Criminal Revision Petition, challenge has been made to Order dated 13.02.2026 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Misc. Application No.110/2026 (NCV No.31/2026) whereby application under Section 503, BNSS as filed by the petitioner for Supurdgi of vehicle in question, stood rejected.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the registered owner of the vehicle in question which has been seized by the Police. He submits that the learned Trial Court while relying upon the Apex Court judgment in Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam ; AIR 2025 SC 549, erroneously observed that the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle in question from which the contraband was recovered, is not entitled for release of the same.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said vehicle (Bus) was being used for commercial purpose. The driver Dinesh and the cleaner Abdul Majid were employees appointed by the petitioner for user of the said vehicle for commercial purposes only.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner who is the registered owner of the vehicle has no criminal antecedents and also has not been named in the FIR.

5. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle in question, being falling under Second Scenario as categorized by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Bishwajit Dey (supra), is not entitled to get the vehicle released in his favour.

6. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.

7. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat ; (2002) 10 SCC 283, Hon’ble the Apex Court held that valuable vehicles and articles must not be permitted to be languished in police custody for a long period exposed to elements, and directed that interim release of such vehicles/articles should be ordered subject to appropriate bond/guarantee for the same.

8. The aforesaid view was reiterated by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Sainaba Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.; (2024) 13 SCC 382 whereby it was held that wasting assets particularly vehicles, must be preserved by entrusting custody to the rightful owner.

9. So far as the judgment in Bishwajit Dey (supra) is concerned, therein Hon’ble the Apex Court held as under:

“22. This Court is further of the opinion that there is no specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case.

23. In the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS Act and in view of Section 51 of NDPS Act, the Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. Consequently, the trial Court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim. However, this power would have to be exercised in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of each case.”

The Court further held as under :

“28. Undoubtedly, the Vehicle is a critical piece of material evidence that may be required for inspection to substantiate the prosecution's case, yet the said requirement can be met by stipulating conditions while releasing the Vehicle in interim on superdari like videography and still photographs to be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the said inventory as well as restriction on sale/transfer of the Vehicle.”

10. Coming