Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Bishwajit Dey VS State of Assam...
2025 1 Supreme 275 : Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, there is no specific bar or restriction on the return of a seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances during the interim period pending disposal of a criminal case. In the absence of any such specific bar, courts can invoke the general powers under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. (now Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) to release the seized vehicle on interim basis. The trial court has discretion to release the vehicle in interim, subject to conditions such as preparing videography and still photographs of the vehicle authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner, and accused, and imposing restrictions on sale or transfer. The vehicle may be released on Superdari, particularly in cases where the owner has not been arrayed as an accused and there is no allegation that the vehicle was used with the owner’s knowledge or connivance. The vehicle is not liable for confiscation if the owner proves it was used without their knowledge or connivance and they took all reasonable precautions against such use.Checking relevance for Denash VS State of Tamil Nadu...
2025 8 Supreme 303 : Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Sections 451 and 457, now Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS), a seized vehicle can be released on Supurdagi (surety) pending the conclusion of trial. Confiscation of a vehicle is a measure resulting in deprivation of property and must conform to natural justice, including a prior hearing. The power to determine confiscation lies with the Special Court, not the Drug Disposal Committee. Rules 2022 do not divest Special Courts of jurisdiction to entertain applications for interim release. Where the owner demonstrates they had no knowledge or connivance in the offence and exercised due diligence, the vehicle may be released on Supurdagi, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Special Court. The Rules of 2022 cannot override substantive rights under the parent NDPS Act, and interim release is permissible in appropriate circumstances.Checking relevance for Tarun Kumar Majhi VS State Of West Bengal...
2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1612 : Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, a vehicle seized in connection with an NDPS investigation cannot be confiscated without the conclusion of a trial. Confiscation is permissible only after a conviction or acquittal. Upon acquittal of the accused, the vehicle may be released upon furnishing a surety bond, which must be reasonable and not indefinite. The court emphasized that no indefinite restriction can be placed on the owner, and the bond amount must be proportionate—here, reduced from Rs. 6,00,000 to Rs. 2,10,000. Owners may also claim innocent possession if they exercised reasonable precautions.Checking relevance for Md. Hakim Khan @ Hakim Khan @ Md. Hatim Khan Son of Late Basir Ahmad @ Late Basir Ahmad Khan VS State Of Bihar...
2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 740 : Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Special Court established under the NDPS Act has jurisdiction to grant interim custody of a seized vehicle to its rightful owner during the pendency of investigation, inquiry, or trial, even if the vehicle is liable for confiscation under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act. The court may grant such interim release provided the owner proves non-involvement in the offence, and conditions may be imposed to ensure the vehicle is produced before the court when required. The provisions of the NDPS Act do not bar interim release, and the Special Court can exercise this power under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, particularly Sections 451 and 457, in conjunction with the NDPS Act.Checking relevance for Bhola Singh @ Ayush Singh Son of Markandey Singh VS State of Bihar...
Bhola Singh @ Ayush Singh Son of Markandey Singh VS State of Bihar - Crimes (2024)
: Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Special Court established under the Act has jurisdiction to release a vehicle to the interim custody of its rightful owner during the pendency of trial or confiscation proceedings, provided certain conditions are met. This power is derived from Section 36C of the NDPS Act, which makes the provisions of the CrPC applicable to proceedings before the Special Court to the extent they are not inconsistent with the NDPS Act. Specifically, Section 451 of the CrPC, which allows for orders regarding the custody and disposal of property pending inquiry or trial, applies to such proceedings. The Special Court may release the vehicle to the rightful owner subject to conditions ensuring its production before the court as and when required during the trial or confiscation proceeding. The mere fact that the vehicle is allegedly involved in an NDPS offence or that confiscation proceedings are initiated under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act cannot be a ground for refusing interim release. The vehicle must be released to the rightful owner unless it is shown that the owner used it with knowledge or connivance in the commission of the offence, or failed to take reasonable precautions. The court may impose conditions such as furnishing a bank guarantee, not alienating the vehicle, not using it for any offence, and ensuring proper documentation (e.g., photographing, noting engine and chassis numbers) before release. The decision to release is not affected by the vehicle being kept in safe custody at a police station, as prolonged retention may lead to deterioration and wastage of national resources.
