Rajasthan High Court Rules Non Registration Does Not Bar Release Of Vehicle Under NDPS

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur has clarified the rights of non-accused vehicle owners whose property has been seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand declared that the inability to provide a permanent vehicle registration does not serve as an absolute bar to securing the interim release—or supurdagi —of a vehicle, provided the owner is not implicated in the underlying criminal case.

Case Background The petitioner, Manish Kumar, sought the release of his Maruti Suzuki Swift ZXI, which had been seized by the authorities in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Dug, District Jhalawar, for alleged offenses under Sections 8, 18, and 29 of the NDPS Act. Although the vehicle was purchased in April 2023, it remained unregistered at the time of seizure, leading a lower court to deny the request for custody. Seeking relief, the petitioner approached the High Court, asserting that he was not an accused in the criminal matter and that continued storage by the police would result in the vehicle’s deterioration.

Legal Analysis and Precedents Justice Dhand evaluated the petition by referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (2025) 3 SCC 241 . The apex court established four distinct scenarios for the seizure of conveyances in NDPS cases. The Bench observed that the petitioner’s situation fell within the third and fourth categories, where the owner is not an accused and the contraband is not stored therein with the owner's knowledge or connivance.

The High Court emphasized that criminal law must not be applied in a vacuum. While acknowledging that Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, mandate registration for public road use, the court held that this regulatory requirement does not empower the state to permanently withhold property from its legitimate owner in an interim proceeding, particularly when no allegation of criminal involvement exists.

Key Observations The judgment underscores that the absence of registration should not override the owner's interim rights. Crucially, the court noted:

  • "This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case."
  • "So far as the question of release of the vehicle... is concerned, the law is well-settled."
  • "In the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner... the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari ."

Court’s Decision and Future Implications The Rajasthan High Court quashed the lower court’s order and directed the release of the vehicle under specific conditions. The petitioner must complete the registration process with the District Transport Officer, Kota, within 30 days. Until that process is complete, he is strictly prohibited from plying the vehicle on public roads. Additionally, the court ordered the execution of a Supurdaginama , requiring the owner to produce the vehicle if required during the trial and to ensure it remains in its current condition.

This decision reinforces a balanced approach to the NDPS Act, ensuring that while the state focuses on the enforcement of anti-drug laws, it does not disproportionately infringe upon the property rights of innocent third parties.