THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7929 OF 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter ‘the BNSS’) seeking to grant interim custody of vehicle namely TATA ZEST Car bearing registration No. TS 04 EG 7043 seized in Crime No. 321 of 2024

of Narsampet Police Station, Warangal.

2. The petitioner is owner of the property/Car and Accused No.2 in the above said Crime and facing accusations for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

3. I have heard Mr. Pasham Trivikram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. On 03.08.2024, the petitioner (arrayed as Accused No.2) along with Accused No.1 was apprehended at Kamalapuram Cross Road, Narsampet, while driving a TATA Zest car bearing registration No. TS 04 EG 7043 and an Ertiga car bearing registration No. TS 26 G 1728. Upon search, the authorities recovered 128 packets of dry ganja weighing 250.9 kilograms from the said vehicles. Consequently, the accused were

arrested and both the vehicles, along with the contraband, were seized in accordance with law.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner/Accused No.2 filed a petition under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) before the learned Special Sessions Judge for NDPS Cases (I Additional Sessions Judge), Warangal, seeking interim custody of the TATA Zest car (bearing No. TS 04 EG 7043) and a Redmi mobile phone. The trial Court, however, dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the registered owner of the TATA Zest car, which is essential for his livelihood. It was further submitted that the vehicle had been purchased on finance from Shriram Finance, and therefore, non-release of the vehicle would result in serious financial hardship. Learned counsel also argued that prolonged exposure of the vehicle to adverse weather conditions would result in its deterioration and loss of efficiency. The petitioner expressed willingness to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court.

In support of the plea, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283], wherein it was held that interim custody of seized property should ordinarily be granted to prevent its decay or deterioration, subject to appropriate safeguards. It was further urged that there is no absolute statutory prohibition under the NDPS Act against release of vehicles on interim custody, and therefore, the trial Court erred in mechanically rejecting the petition without appreciating the settled legal principles. Accordingly, indulgence of this Court was sought. 7. Conversely, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner, being both the registered owner and driver of the vehicle, was apprehended red-handed while transporting a huge quantity of contraband. Under the NDPS Act, such a vehicle is liable for confiscation, and granting interim custody in such circumstances would defeat the statutory mandate.

Reliance was placed on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam [2025 INSC 32], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the accused himself is both the driver and owner of the vehicle from which contraband is recovered, interim release of the vehicle cannot be permitted. In light of this authoritative pronouncement, it was contended that the petition for interim custody filed by the petitioner-owner-cum-

driver is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal.

8. I have perused the materials on record.

9. As per the case of the prosecution