Back
MP High Court Remands Vehicle Release Case, Cites No Under NDPS Act
In a significant ruling, the has set aside a trial court order that rejected the release of a vehicle seized under the , emphasizing that there is no governing such interim releases. The matter has been remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration on merits.
High Court Sets Aside Rejection, Orders Fresh Look
Justice Pushpendra Yadav, presiding over a , overturned the order dated , passed by the , which had denied the petitioner’s application for the release of his white Creta car on (). The court held that the trial court had “rejected outrightly” the plea without considering the facts and the applicable law, particularly the ’s clarification in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam .
The Case: Seized Creta and 1.6 Kg of Opium
On , the petitioner, Lokendra alias Golu, was driving his white Hyundai Creta (registration MP-14ZH-3584) when it was intercepted by police at Mragwas, Guna. A search revealed 1.608 kilograms of opium, leading to the registration of FIR No. 182/2025 under . The vehicle was seized, and the petitioner, being both the driver and owner, was arrayed as an accused.
Seeking interim release of the vehicle, the petitioner moved an application under . The Special Judge rejected it, relying on an order of the in , which held that an owner-accused is not entitled to merely by virtue of ownership.
Arguments: vs. Fact-Specific Approach
The petitioner’s counsel, Advocates and , contended that the trial court had misapplied the law. They argued that the order relied upon was itself based on Bishwajit Dey , but the trial court ignored the ’s explicit clarification that its guidelines were not a . They further highlighted that in an identical case (MJCR No. 9/2026), the same trial court had allowed the release of a vehicle.
The State, represented by Public Prosecutor , opposed the revision, supporting the trial court’s order.
The Law: ’s Clarification in Bishwajit Dey
The High Court turned to the ’s judgment in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam , (2025) 3 SCC 241. In that case, the apex court outlined four scenarios for vehicle seizure under the NDPS Act and indicated when release on may or may not be appropriate. Crucially, in paragraph 35, the stated:
“This Court clarifies that the aforesaid discussion should not be taken as laying down a as it will be open to the trial Courts to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant.”
The High Court noted that the trial court had failed to apply this clarification and instead mechanically followed a precedent without examining the facts.
Key Observation: No
Justice Yadav observed that the trial court’s order was based on a “rigid” reading of the law, contrary to the ’s mandate. The court stated:
“In paragraph 35, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that the aforesaid discussion should not be taken as laying down a and that it will be open to the trial Courts to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that there is no and it is open to the trial Court to take a decision considering the facts of the case.”
The court also noted that the petitioner had placed on record an order where the trial court itself had released a vehicle in a similar case, highlighting the inconsistency.
Decision and Implications
The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Special Judge, Guna, with a direction to pass a fresh order on the petitioner’s application for vehicle release, after considering the facts, the law, and the ’s guidance in Bishwajit Dey . The was disposed of with these observations.
The ruling reinforces that courts dealing with NDPS seizures must conduct a fact-specific inquiry rather than applying blanket prohibitions. It provides clarity for vehicle owners who are accused in NDPS cases, ensuring that interim release decisions are made on the merits of each case.
