Rajasthan High Court Denies Interim Release of Seized Vehicle to NDPS-Accused Owner, Citing Supreme Court Guidelines

Introduction

In a significant ruling for narcotics-related prosecutions, the Rajasthan High Court has upheld the denial of interim custody (supurdagi) of a vehicle seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act to its registered owner, who is also named as an accused in the case. The decision, delivered by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in Khurshid v. State of Rajasthan [2025:RJ-JP:49023], emphasizes that mere ownership does not entitle an individual to temporary possession of a vehicle used in drug trafficking when they are implicated in the offence. This judgment draws directly from the Supreme Court's framework in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (2025), which outlines specific scenarios for vehicle release in NDPS matters. The case arose from a petition challenging a trial court's rejection of the owner's application under Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023—equivalents to the former CrPC provisions for bail and property disposal. With approximately 52 kg of ganja recovered from the vehicle, the ruling reinforces the stringent approach to asset forfeiture in drug cases, impacting how courts handle interim relief for implicated vehicle owners across India.

This decision comes amid ongoing scrutiny of property rights in criminal investigations, particularly under the NDPS Act, where vehicles are often key evidence and subject to confiscation. By dismissing the petition, the High Court signals a cautious stance on releasing assets linked to serious narcotics offences, potentially guiding lower courts in balancing individual rights against public interest in curbing drug trafficking.

Case Background

The dispute originated from FIR No. 81/2024 registered at Police Station Badodamev, District Alwar, Rajasthan, under Sections 8, 20, and 25 of the NDPS Act. These provisions criminalize the cultivation, possession, and transportation of narcotic drugs like ganja, with penalties including rigorous imprisonment and fines. On inspection, authorities recovered 52 kg 267 grams of ganja from a Swift Dzire car bearing registration No. DL-3-CBV-6509. The petitioner, Khurshid s/o Itilyas, a resident of Nakalpur, Haryana, was identified as the registered owner of the vehicle and was charge-sheeted alongside co-accused for the offences.

Khurshid filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, Alwar, seeking supurdagi of the vehicle, arguing that the investigation was complete and the car was no longer needed as evidence. The trial court rejected this on November 1, 2025, prompting Khurshid to approach the Rajasthan High Court via Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 7517/2025. The petition was heard on December 2, 2025, with advocate Gajender Singh Rathore representing the petitioner and Public Prosecutor Vivek Choudhary for the State of Rajasthan.

At its core, the case revolved around a fundamental tension in NDPS proceedings: the right of an owner to reclaim property versus the state's interest in preserving evidence and deterring drug-related crimes. The vehicle's role as the conveyance for a substantial quantity of contraband—far exceeding small-scale possession thresholds—elevated the stakes, as NDPS law mandates forfeiture of such assets upon conviction under Section 52A. The timeline underscores the swift progression typical in narcotics cases: FIR in 2024, charge-sheet filing, and High Court adjudication within a year, reflecting the Act's emphasis on expeditious trials.

This backdrop highlights broader challenges in NDPS enforcement, where vehicles are frequently seized but owners often seek interim relief to mitigate economic hardship. The petitioner's Haryana residency added an inter-state dimension, common in drug trafficking networks spanning borders.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Rathore, contended that Khurshid, as the lawful registered owner, deserved supurdagi since the investigation had concluded, and the vehicle was lying idle, causing undue hardship. He emphasized that under Section 451 of the CrPC (now Sections 497/503 BNSS), courts have discretionary power to release property not required for further probe, citing two Rajasthan High Court precedents: Deepu v. State of Rajasthan [2024 (2) Cri.L.J. (Raj.) 751] and Devigan Urf Degen Verman v. State of Rajasthan [2021 (1) Cri.L.R. (Raj.) 252]. These cases, he argued, supported release to owners where no ongoing evidentiary need existed, preventing the state's de facto confiscation before trial.

In contrast, the Public Prosecutor, Mr. Choudhary, vehemently opposed the plea, highlighting the vehicle's direct involvement in transporting a "huge quantity" of contraband—52 kg 267 gms of ganja—implicating Khurshid as an accused. He asserted that releasing the vehicle to an accused would undermine the NDPS Act's objectives, as outlined in its preamble to combat illicit trafficking. The PP stressed that the petitioner's ownership and charge-sheet status disqualified him from interim relief, warning that such a move could encourage evasion of forfeiture. No counter-affidavit was filed, but the oral submissions underscored the gravity of the offence, noting ganja's classification as a narcotic with societal harms like addiction and organized crime links.

Both sides grappled with factual points: the petitioner downplayed his accused status, focusing on ownership documents, while the state pointed to the FIR's allegations of active possession and transportation. Legally, the debate hinged on interpreting supurdagi discretion in light of NDPS-specific restrictions, with the petitioner advocating a liberal approach and the respondent a restrictive one tied to culpability.

Legal Analysis

Justice Dhand's reasoning meticulously applied the Supreme Court's four-scenario framework from Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (Criminal Appeal No. 87/2025, decided January 7, 2025), which categorizes vehicle seizures in NDPS cases to guide interim release. This precedent is pivotal, as it rejects a blanket policy, instead tailoring decisions to case facts: (1) contraband recovered from the owner; (2) from the owner's agent (e.g., driver); (3) from a stolen vehicle; or (4) from a third-party occupant without owner connivance.

The Court classified Khurshid's case under the first scenario, where the owner is the accused from whom possession is recovered, barring supurdagi until the accused discharges the reverse burden of proof under NDPS Section 35 (presumption of culpable mental state). This aligns with the Act's rigor, where vehicles are tools of crime, not neutral property. Justice Dhand noted, "criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case," distinguishing it from scenarios 3 and 4, where innocent owners might prevail.

The ruling distinguishes supurdagi from outright forfeiture (under NDPS Section 60), clarifying that interim denial does not prejudice final trial outcomes. It also references the petitioner's cited cases but deems them inapplicable, as they involved non-accused owners or different facts. Broader principles from CrPC/BNSS Section 451—ensuring property preservation without aiding crime—were invoked, but subordinated to NDPS's special provisions.

This analysis reinforces Bishwajit Dey's relevance: in owner-implicated cases, release risks evidence tampering or signal leniency to traffickers. The Court made no finding on merits but preserved the petitioner's trial rights, balancing due process. Implications extend to similar statutes like POCSO or smuggling laws, where seized assets face analogous scrutiny.

Integrating insights from related Rajasthan High Court rulings, such as Dev Narayan Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan [2025:RJ-JP:48147], which quashed unauthorized IPC Section 211 proceedings, underscores procedural safeguards in criminal matters. Though distinct, it highlights the judiciary's role in enforcing statutory bars, paralleling the NDPS context where unauthorized releases could invite appeals.

Key Observations

The judgment features several incisive excerpts that crystallize the legal boundaries:

• On the scenarios for seizure: "Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized / recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner's knowledge and connivance." (Para 6, quoting Bishwajit Dey )

• Regarding non-release in implicated cases: "This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused-owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari..." (Para 6)

• Applying to the facts: "The first two scenarios deal with the situations where supurdagi of such vehicles has not been permitted when the registered owner of the vehicle was found to be involved in commission of offences punishable under NDPS Act such as when the contraband/drugs have been recovered from the possession of the owner of the vehicle or his agent such as driver or cleaner of the vehicle." (Para 7)

• Final classification: "Since the petitioner falls under the first scenario, hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get the supurdagi of the vehicle in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bishwajit Dey (supra)." (Para 8)

These observations, attributed to Justice Dhand, provide a roadmap for lower courts, emphasizing fact-specific application over rote ownership claims.

Court's Decision

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition on December 2, 2025, affirming the trial court's order and finding "no illegality" warranting interference. Justice Dhand explicitly held: "In light of the judgment passed by Bishwajit Dey (Supra), this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant criminal misc. petition and finds no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below, which requires any interference of this Court." The stay application and pending motions were also dismissed.

Practically, the vehicle remains in police custody pending trial, shielding it from use in further crimes while allowing the state to pursue forfeiture if convicted. For Khurshid, this means potential long-term loss of the asset, valued likely in lakhs, without interim access— a harsh but proportionate measure given the contraband volume.

This ruling's implications ripple through NDPS jurisprudence: it standardizes denial of supurdagi to accused owners in scenarios 1 and 2, reducing forum-shopping and ensuring uniformity. Future cases may see more reliance on Bishwajit Dey , prompting defense strategies focused on disproving owner involvement early. For legal practitioners, it advises caution in filing such applications, prioritizing evidence of innocence over hardship pleas.

Broader effects include bolstering anti-trafficking efforts by deterring vehicle use in narcotics, though critics may argue it burdens innocent co-owners. In a landscape with rising drug seizures—Rajasthan reported over 1,000 NDPS cases in 2024—this decision aids efficient case management, potentially expediting trials by keeping evidence intact. It also invites legislative scrutiny on balancing property rights in special laws, ensuring NDPS's punitive edge does not erode constitutional protections under Article 300A.

Overall, the judgment exemplifies judicial restraint, prioritizing societal safety while upholding procedural fairness, and serves as a benchmark for high-stakes asset disputes in criminal law.