Interim Release of Seized Vehicles Under NDPS Act

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 03.09.2026

Interim Release of Seized Vehicles Under NDPS Act

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, addressing the interim release of vehicles seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal arguments, and the Court’s reasoning, offering clarity on a complex area of criminal law.

Background of the Case

• Incident: On April 10, 2023, a truck owned by Bishwajit Dey was stopped at a police checkpoint in Assam. Police discovered 24.8 grams of heroin concealed in the vehicle. The main accused, Md. Dimpul, was arrested at the scene.
• Appellant’s Position: Bishwajit Dey, the truck owner, claimed neither he nor his driver was aware of the contraband. The driver and helper were cited as witnesses, not accused.
• Legal Proceedings: The vehicle was seized and left exposed at the police station, leading Dey to seek its interim release under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Legal Arguments

For the Appellant

1. No Knowledge or Involvement: The owner and driver were not implicated in the crime.
2. Vehicle Deterioration: The truck, being the owner’s sole source of income, was deteriorating in police custody.
3. Precedents: Cited Supreme Court and High Court judgments supporting interim release of vehicles to bona fide owners, subject to conditions.

For the State

1. NDPS Act as a Special Law: The State argued that the NDPS Act is a complete code, and does not contemplate interim release of seized vehicles during trial.
2. Risk of Reuse: Releasing the vehicle could enable further illegal activities.
3. Material Evidence: The vehicle is crucial evidence for the prosecution.

Key Legal Provisions Discussed

• NDPS Act Sections 36C, 51, 52A, 60, 63: Address the procedure for seizure, storage, and confiscation of vehicles used in drug trafficking.
• CrPC Sections 451, 457: Allow courts to order interim custody or disposal of property pending trial.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

No Absolute Bar on Interim Release

• The Court found no specific prohibition in the NDPS Act against interim release of seized vehicles.
• Section 51 of the NDPS Act allows application of CrPC provisions unless inconsistent with the Act.

Case-by-Case Discretion

• The Court outlined four scenarios for vehicle seizure:
  1. Owner is the accused.
  2. Owner’s agent (e.g., driver) is the accused.
  3. Vehicle is stolen and used without owner’s knowledge.
  4. Contraband is found with a third-party occupant, with no allegation against the owner.
• In the first two scenarios, interim release is generally not favored. In the latter two, especially where the owner is not accused, interim release should normally be granted, subject to safeguards.

Practical Considerations

• Keeping vehicles in police custody leads to deterioration and loss of value.
• Interim release benefits the owner (restoring livelihood), the financier (loan repayment), and society (vehicle utility).

Safeguards for Interim Release

• Detailed video and photographic documentation of the vehicle.
• Undertaking by the owner not to sell or transfer the vehicle during trial.
• Bond to ensure the vehicle’s production or payment of its value if confiscation is ordered.

Final Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the trial court to release the vehicle to the owner on strict conditions, including:

• Preparation of video and photographic inventory.
• Authentication by the investigating officer, owner, and accused.
• Prohibition on sale or transfer until trial concludes.
• Undertaking to produce the vehicle or pay its value if required.

Implications of the Judgment

• Clarity for Lower Courts: The judgment provides a clear framework for handling interim release applications in NDPS cases.
• Protection for Innocent Owners: Owners not implicated in the crime are protected from undue hardship.
• Balance of Interests: The decision balances the need to preserve evidence with the rights of property owners.

This landmark ruling ensures that justice is served without causing unnecessary harm to innocent vehicle owners, while maintaining the integrity of criminal investigations under the NDPS Act.

Connected Matter

High Court of Gujarat on Conditional Release of Seized Vehicle Under NDPS Act

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Supreme Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi