In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India held that vehicles seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) can be released temporarily under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), provided certain legal conditions are met. The decision came in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2025, arising from Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13370 of 2024, involving the seizure of a truck used for alleged drug trafficking.
Case Background
The appellant, Bishwajit Dey, a truck owner, challenged a Gauhati High Court judgment denying the release of his vehicle, seized under allegations of heroin smuggling. The vehicle, registered as AS-01-NC-4355, was stopped during a checkpoint inspection at Karbi Anglong, Assam, where contraband heroin was discovered in the possession of a co-passenger, Md. Dimpul, without the appellant’s knowledge.
The trial court and High Court dismissed Dey’s plea for interim custody, reasoning that the NDPS Act, a stringent anti-drug statute, implicitly disallowed such releases. Aggrieved, Dey approached the Supreme Court, asserting his innocence and seeking relief for his truck, his sole livelihood source.
Legal Issues Examined
1. Applicability of Cr.P.C. Provisions: The Court examined whether Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., which govern the interim custody of seized property, can be invoked in NDPS cases.
2. Knowledge or Connivance: A central question was whether the owner’s lack of involvement in the contraband’s transportation negated the seizure’s continued necessity.
3. Preservation of Evidence: The Court weighed the prosecution’s claim that the vehicle was essential evidence requiring custody until trial completion.
Court’s Observations
The Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan made pivotal observations while allowing the appeal:
1. No Absolute Bar in NDPS Act: The Court found no specific provision in the NDPS Act prohibiting the interim release of seized vehicles. Section 51 of the Act permits Cr.P.C. provisions to apply unless inconsistent with the NDPS Act’s framework.
2. Prevention of Absurd Outcomes: Observing that indefinite vehicle seizures could lead to absurd and unjust consequences, the Court noted:
“If a vehicle like a bus or ship is used unknowingly to transport contraband, seizing it until trial concludes would cause unnecessary hardship and result in wasteful deterioration of property.”
3. Individual Case Assessment: The Court outlined four scenarios for vehicle seizure:
– Contraband found with the vehicle’s owner.
– Contraband in possession of the owner’s agent (e.g., driver).
– Contraband in a stolen vehicle.
– Contraband with a third-party occupant without the owner’s knowledge.
bench held that interim release could be allowed in the last two scenarios, subject to conditions.
4. Balancing Public Interest and Owner’s Rights: The judgment emphasized that courts should consider the owner’s livelihood, the vehicle’s deterioration, and societal benefits of operational vehicles while safeguarding trial integrity.
Supreme Court’s Directions
The Court allowed the appeal, directing the trial court to release the truck to its owner on strict conditions:
– Documentation and Videography: An inventory of the vehicle, supported by videographic evidence, must be maintained.
– Non-Alienation: The owner cannot sell or transfer the vehicle until the trial concludes.
– Undertaking: The appellant must ensure the vehicle’s availability during the trial and, if required, compensate its value upon confiscation.
