Supreme Court Clarifies Interim Release of Seized Vehicles Under NDPS Act

Introduction

The case of Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam (2025 INSC 32) was brought before the Supreme Court of India to address the issue of whether a vehicle seized under allegations of transporting narcotic substances could be released to its owner during the pendency of the trial. The appellant, Mr. Bishwajit Dey, sought the interim release (also known as “superdari”) of his truck, which was allegedly used by a third party to transport contraband items. The vehicle, upon seizure, had remained in police custody for some time, exposed to natural wear and tear. The fundamental legal question was whether special provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) bar release of seized vehicles during a criminal trial.

The Supreme Court’s ruling unified conflicting approaches from various High Courts. It laid down clear guidelines on the conditions under which interim release of seized vehicles could be considered, even in cases arising under the NDPS Act. This commentary provides a detailed examination of the judgments cited, the legal reasoning employed by the Court, and the impact of this decision on future proceedings related to NDPS offences.

Summary of the Judgment

In this judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the interim release of the truck owned by the appellant, acknowledging there is no absolute bar under the NDPS Act preventing a court from releasing a seized vehicle pending trial. The Court noted that, although the NDPS Act provides for confiscation of vehicles used to transport illicit drugs, such confiscation operates only upon final conviction or upon a court’s conclusion that the owner had knowledge or connivance in the crime. If an owner can demonstrate lack of knowledge and that he took reasonable precautions, the vehicle’s owner should not be penalized prematurely.

The Supreme Court underscored the principle that Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) can guide courts to pass interim custody orders, subject to stringent conditions ensuring the availability and preservation of the vehicle for trial. These conditions typically include photographic or video records, sureties, undertakings not to alienate the property, and any other such steps to ensure that the administration of justice is not obstructed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court carefully reviewed a series of cases where conflicting views had emerged among various High Courts and earlier Supreme Court decisions:

• Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Punjab (1999) 5 SCC 670: Addressed the question of “ownership” under the NDPS Act and held that a registered owner bears the onus to prove lack of knowledge or connivance regarding the offensive use.
• Union of India v. Dinesh Kumar Verma (2005) 9 SCC 330: The Supreme Court, in the factual context of that case, did not find it appropriate to release a vehicle seized for carrying drugs.
• Smt. Narender Kaur v. Arun Sheoran (2000 SCC OnLine Del 502): Emphasized that the NDPS Act is a special statute aiming to curb serious drug-trafficking offences, and ordinarily disfavored release of a vehicle when the owner or the person in charge might have knowingly participated in the unlawful act.
• Sainaba v. State of Kerala (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1784): Significantly, the Supreme Court allowed release of a seized vehicle where the registered owner was not implicated in the offence, explicitly reaffirming that Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. could be used even in NDPS matters, with conditions imposed on the owner.

The Court reconciled these precedents by noting that none had established an inviolable rule banning interim release under the NDPS Act; rather, they turned on their specific facts and the extent of the owner’s alleged involvement.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court zeroed in on Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act, which set forth procedures for confiscating any conveyance used for transporting narcotic drugs. While these provisions do allow confiscation where the owner or driver knowingly facilitated a crime, a “reverse burden of proof” operates—by default, the vehicle is liable to confiscation unless the owner establishes that he was not complicit. However, the NDPS Act does not impose a blanket prohibition on granting interim release of the seized vehicle.

Relying on Section 51 of the NDPS Act, which extends the applicability of the Cr.P.C. where not inconsistent with the NDPS Act, the Supreme Court concluded that Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. could be employed to grant custody of the vehicle to the rightful owner. The Court reasoned that forcing an owner to wait until final disposal of the trial, despite having no knowledge of the contraband, would be “irrational and indefensible.” The lingering possibility that the owner might re-misuse the vehicle, though real, did not justify absolute refusal of release. Instead, the Court found a balanced approach—imposing conditions for the vehicle’s safe custody, documentation, and potential re-seizure—more consistent with fairness.

Significantly, the Court identified four broad scenarios:

1. Where the owner himself is found carrying the contraband.
2. Where the driver or agent of the owner, with his knowledge or consent, transports the contraband.
3. Where the vehicle has been stolen, and the accused uses it without the owner’s knowledge.
4. Where a third party transports the contraband without the owner’s knowledge or any suspicion on the owner’s part.

In the first two, courts are justified in withholding interim release. In the third and fourth, release is ordinarily favored, subject to conditions ensuring continued availability of the vehicle for trial and potential confiscation if the ultimate verdict so warrants.

Impact

This ruling has far-reaching implications:

• Clarity and Uniformity: Conflicting High Court precedents are reconciled. Trial courts now have a structured guideline to evaluate interim custody applications for vehicles seized in NDPS cases.
• Balancing Rights and Enforcement: Legitimate owners who have no role in the drug trafficking activities can reclaim their property early, protecting their livelihood and property value. At the same time, the prosecution’s ability to confiscate vehicles in cases of actual involvement remains intact.
• Streamlined Proceedings: Requiring photographic or video inventories, signed sureties, and an express undertaking by the applicant fosters more efficient handling of seized property, reducing the administrative burden on police stations and courts.
• Reduced Storage Risks: Long-term storage of vehicles in police stations leads to deterioration and potential depreciation; the ability to release these vehicles serves interests of justice and economic utility.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several key points of law in this verdict warrant a simpler explanation:

1. NDPS Act’s Special Provisions: While the NDPS Act has stringent measures to clamp down on drug trafficking, the Act still defers to general criminal procedure principles (from the Cr.P.C.) where the special legislation is silent.
2. Reverse Burden of Proof: Under Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act, once the prosecution shows that contraband was seized from a conveyance, it is presumed that the owner had knowledge unless the owner proves otherwise. This does not, however, preclude temporary release.
3. Superdari (Interim Release) Conditions: When a vehicle is released, the owner must provide sureties, undertakings against sale or further misuse, and allow the police or court authorities to document the vehicle thoroughly. This ensures that the vehicle, if confiscated at the end of trial, remains available in substantially the same state.
4. Legal Outcome vs. Interim Custody: A seized vehicle can be released temporarily on superdari even when the final “confiscation or acquittal” question has yet to be decided, so long as it does not prejudice the ongoing trial.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam marks a critical clarification regarding the interim release of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act. By examining the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act and harmonizing them with Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., the Court underscored that there is no definitive bar to returning seized vehicles to bona fide owners if they had no knowledge of the transport of contraband. This balanced approach ensures that innocent owners are not unduly deprived of their property for long durations, while also safeguarding evidence for successful prosecution.

Overall, this precedent brings relief to many who rely on seized vehicles for their livelihoods, reconciles divergent High Court views on the subject, and provides a clear roadmap for trial courts in future NDPS prosecutions. The legal position now stands: absent allegations or proof of the owner’s connivance, the interim release of a seized vehicle is permissible, subject to conditions that ensure its availability for trial and potential confiscation if warranted by the final adjudication.