Supreme Court Allows Interim Release of Vehicle in NDPS Case: Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assam (2025) INSC 32

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 7 January 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 32

Judges: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan

Can a vehicle, seized in connection with a drug trafficking case, be released to its owner while the trial is still ongoing? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, clarifying the legal position on the interim release of vehicles seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). This judgment provides significant relief to vehicle owners who are not directly involved in drug-related offenses. The bench comprised of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan.

Case Background

The appellant, Bishwajit Dey, owned a truck (Registration No. AS-01-NC-4355) which he used for commercial purposes. On April 10, 2023, the truck was stopped at a checking point. During the search, police found two soap boxes containing 24.8 grams of suspected heroin concealed inside the tarpaulin of the truck. The police arrested Md. Dimpul, who was found in possession of the contraband. The driver of the vehicle, Joherul Ali, stated that Md. Dimpul boarded the vehicle from Manipur and was carrying the substance. Bishwajit Dey, the owner of the truck, claimed that neither he nor his driver were aware of the presence of the contraband.

The appellant sought the release of his vehicle, which was seized by the police. He contended that the vehicle was his only source of income and that it was deteriorating while being kept at the police station.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, rejected the appellant’s plea for the release of the vehicle. The Gauhati High Court at Assam dismissed the appellant’s writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court upheld the lower court’s decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The following provisions were considered:

• Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act: This section deals with punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations.
• Section 36C of the NDPS Act:
  “Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (including the provisions as to bail and bonds) shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court….”
• Section 51 of the NDPS Act:
  “The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, to all warrants issued and arrests, searches and seizures made under this Act.”
• Section 52A(1) of the NDPS Act:
  “The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, in respect of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic substances, class of controlled substances or conveyances, which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may, from time to time, determine… .”
• Section 60 of the NDPS Act: This section outlines the liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles, and conveyances to confiscation.
  “(1) Whenever any offence punishable under this Act has been committed, the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, controlled substance, opium poppy, coca plant, cannabis plant, materials, apparatus and utensils in respect of which or by means of which such offence has been committed, shall be liable to confiscation.
  (2) Any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance [or controlled substances] lawfully produced, imported inter-State, exported inter-State, imported into India, transported, manufactured, possessed, used, purchased or sold along with, or in addition to, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance [or controlled substances] which is liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) and there receptacles, packages and coverings in which any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance [or controlled substances], materials, apparatus or utensils liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) is found, and the other contents, if any, of such receptacles or packages shall likewise be liable to confiscation.
  (3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance [or controlled substances], or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.”
• Second Proviso to Section 63 of the NDPS Act: This proviso allows for the sale of articles liable to speedy decay.
  “Provided further that if any such article or thing, other than a narcotic drug, psychotropic substances [controlled substance], the opium poppy, coca plant or cannabis plant is liable to speedy and natural decay, or if the court is of the opinion that its sale would be for the benefit of its owner, it may at any time direct it to be sold; and the provisions of this sub-section shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of the sale .”
• Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section deals with the order for custody and disposal of property pending trial.
  “When any property is produced before any criminal court during any inquiry or trial, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
  Explanation. —For the purposes of this section,‘property’ includes —
  (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the court or which is in its custody.
  (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.”
• Section 457 of the CrPC: This section outlines the procedure by police upon seizure of property.
  “(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a criminal court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.
  (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.”

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant:

• The appellant argued that the truck was his only source of income and that it was deteriorating while being kept at the police station.
• The appellant contended that neither he nor his driver were aware that the accused, Md. Dimpul, was carrying the contraband.
• The appellant emphasized that the chargesheet filed by the police clearly stated that the heroin was recovered from the possession of Md. Dimpul and not from the appellant or his driver.
• The appellant relied on Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC to seek the release of the vehicle, citing the judgments in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 and Bhola Singh @ Ayush Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Criminal Misc. No. 40912/2016, which allowed for the interim release of vehicles.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent (State of Assam):

• The respondent argued that the NDPS Act is a special enactment and a complete code in itself, which does not contemplate the interim release of a seized conveyance during the pendency of the trial.
• The respondent cited Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2008) 16 SCC 417; Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), (2020) 10 SCC 120 and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Amit Kumar, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6083 to support their contention that the NDPS Act is a self-contained code.
• The respondent relied on Smt. Narender Kaur vs. Arun Sheoran, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2000 SCC OnLine Del 502; Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1999) 5 SCC 670; Union of India vs. Dinesh Kumar Verma, (2005) 9 SCC 330; Shajahan vs. Inspector of Excise and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 3685; and In Re: Moumita Saha, 2023, SCC OnLine Cal 1094 to argue that vehicles seized under the NDPS Act should not be released on interim custody.
• The respondent contended that the seized vehicle is material evidence and is required for inspection during the trial.
• The respondent also argued that releasing the vehicle would increase the risk of its reuse for transporting contraband and would encourage the misuse of third-party vehicles for drug trafficking.

Summary of Arguments

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act can be released on interim custody to its owner during the pendency of the trial?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 – Supreme Court of India
• Bhola Singh @ Ayush Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Criminal Misc. No. 40912/2016 – High Court of Judicature at Patna
• Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2008) 16 SCC 417 – Supreme Court of India
• Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), (2020) 10 SCC 120 – Supreme Court of India
• Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Amit Kumar, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6083 – High Court of Delhi
• Smt. Narender Kaur vs. Arun Sheoran, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2000 SCC OnLine Del 502 – High Court of Delhi
• Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1999) 5 SCC 670 – Supreme Court of India
• Union of India vs. Dinesh Kumar Verma, (2005) 9 SCC 330 – Supreme Court of India
• Shajahan vs. Inspector of Excise and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 3685 – High Court of Kerala
• In Re: Moumita Saha, 2023, SCC OnLine Cal 1094 – High Court of Calcutta
• General Insurance Council & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 6 SCC 768 – Supreme Court of India
• Gurbinder Singh @ Shinder vs. State of Punjab, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 16026 – High Court of Punjab and Haryana
• Tej Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 4679 – High Court of Punjab and Haryana
• Shams Tavrej vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine All 1154 – High Court of Allahabad
• Manakram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. Rev. 2421/2021 – High Court of Madhya Pradesh
• Nirmal Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRR-1208-2018 (O&M) – High Court of Punjab and Haryana
• Kawal Jeet Kaur vs. State of Karnataka, 2024:KHC-K:5691 – High Court of Karnataka
• Bhagirath vs. State of Rajasthan, 2024: RJ-JD:36868 – High Court of Rajasthan
• Hatzl v. XL Insurance Co. Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ. 223 – Court of Appeal of England and Wales
• R (on the application of Noone) v. Governor of HMP Drake Hall [2010] UKSC 30 – Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
• Sainaba vs. State of Kerala and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1784 – Supreme Court of India

Legal Provisions:

• Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act – Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations.
• Section 36C of the NDPS Act – Application of CrPC to proceedings before a Special Court.
• Section 51 of the NDPS Act – Application of CrPC to warrants, arrests, searches, and seizures under the NDPS Act.
• Section 52A(1) of the NDPS Act – Disposal of seized narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances, or conveyances.
• Section 60 of the NDPS Act – Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles, and conveyances to confiscation.
• Second Proviso to Section 63 of the NDPS Act – Sale of articles liable to speedy decay.
• Section 451 of the CrPC – Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial.
• Section 457 of the CrPC – Procedure by police upon seizure of property.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283*: Followed to emphasize the need to release seized vehicles to prevent deterioration.
• Bhola Singh @ Ayush Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Criminal Misc. No. 40912/2016*: Followed to support the interim release of vehicles to the rightful owner.
• Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2008) 16 SCC 417*: Acknowledged, but distinguished as not addressing the issue of interim release of vehicles.
• Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), (2020) 10 SCC 120*: Acknowledged, but distinguished as not addressing the issue of interim release of vehicles.
• Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Amit Kumar, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6083*: Acknowledged, but distinguished as not addressing the issue of interim release of vehicles.
• Smt. Narender Kaur vs. Arun Sheoran, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2000 SCC OnLine Del 502*: Not followed, as it was held that the interpretation was against the object and purpose of the Act.
• Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1999) 5 SCC 670*: Acknowledged, but distinguished as it dealt with the definition of “owner” under the NDPS Act.
• Union of India vs. Dinesh Kumar Verma, (2005) 9 SCC 330*: Not followed, as the court held that the facts were different.
• Shajahan vs. Inspector of Excise and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 3685*: Not followed, as the court held that the facts were different.
• In Re: Moumita Saha, 2023, SCC OnLine Cal 1094*: Not followed, as the court held that the facts were different.
• General Insurance Council & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 6 SCC 768*: Followed to support the interim release of vehicles.
• Gurbinder Singh @ Shinder vs. State of Punjab, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 16026*: Followed to support the interim release of vehicles.
• Tej Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 4679*: Followed to support the interim release of vehicles.
• Shams Tavrej vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine All 1154*: Followed to support the interim release of vehicles.
• Manakram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. Rev. 2421/2021*: Followed to support the interim release of vehicles.
• Nirmal Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRR-1208-2018 (O&M)*: Followed to support the interim release of vehicles.
• Kawal Jeet Kaur vs. State of Karnataka, 2024:KHC-K:5691*: Followed to support the interim release of vehicles.
• Bhagirath vs. State of Rajasthan, 2024: RJ-JD:36868*: Followed to support the interim release of vehicles.
• Hatzl v. XL Insurance Co. Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ. 223*: Cited to support the principle against absurd interpretations.
• R (on the application of Noone) v. Governor of HMP Drake Hall [2010] UKSC 30*: Cited to support the principle against absurd interpretations.
• Sainaba vs. State of Kerala and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1784*: Followed to support the interim release of vehicles in similar facts.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, primarily focusing on the absence of a specific bar in the NDPS Act against the interim release of vehicles and the need to prevent unjust outcomes. The Court emphasized that the NDPS Act does not explicitly prohibit the release of seized vehicles during the trial. The court also considered the practical implications of keeping vehicles in police custody, noting that they often deteriorate due to exposure to the elements. The court also took into account the fact that the vehicle was the owner’s source of livelihood.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the NDPS Act is a complete code but clarified that it does not explicitly prohibit the application of the CrPC for matters not specifically addressed in the NDPS Act. The Court also rejected the argument that releasing the vehicle would lead to its misuse, stating that such concerns could be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions on the release. The Court also emphasized that keeping the vehicle in police custody would serve no purpose and would only lead to its deterioration.

The Court highlighted the principle that laws should be interpreted to avoid absurd or unjust results. It noted that if the respondent’s interpretation was accepted, it would lead to situations where even innocent owners of conveyances would be unduly penalized. The court also noted that in the present case, the chargesheet did not name the owner of the vehicle as an accused.

The Supreme Court observed that there are broadly four scenarios when drugs are seized from a vehicle: (1) when the owner is the accused; (2) when the owner’s agent is the accused; (3) when the vehicle is stolen; and (4) when a third-party occupant is the accused. It held that in the first two scenarios, the vehicle may not be released on interim custody until the accused-owner discharges the reverse burden of proof. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, the vehicle should normally be released on superdari.

The Supreme Court relied on its judgment in Sainaba vs. State of Kerala and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1784, where a vehicle was released on similar facts. The Court also noted that if the vehicle was kept in police custody, it would serve no purpose and would only reduce its value.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“This Court is further of the opinion that there is no specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case.”

“It is trite law that the more absurd a suggested conclusion of construction is, the more the court will lean against that conclusion. That is ordinarily so whether one is construing a contract or a statute.”

“ThisCourt is of the opinion that the interpretation propounded by the respondent would lead to an absurd situation, where even an innocent owner of a conveyance would be unduly penalized. This would be contrary to the object and purpose of the Act.”

“In the present case, the chargesheet does not name the owner of the vehicle as an accused. The chargesheet clearly indicates that the contraband was recovered from the possession of Md. Dimpul and not from the appellant or his driver. The appellant has also stated that neither he nor his driver were aware that the accused was carrying the contraband.”

“There are broadly four scenarios when drugs are seized from a vehicle: (1) when the owner is the accused; (2) when the owner’s agent is the accused; (3) when the vehicle is stolen; and (4) when a third-party occupant is the accused. In the first two scenarios, the vehicle may not be released on interim custody until the accused-owner discharges the reverse burden of proof. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, the vehicle should normally be released on superdari.”

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge and the Gauhati High Court. The Court ordered the release of the appellant’s truck on interim custody, subject to the following conditions:

• The appellant must furnish a security of ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only).
• The appellant must furnish an undertaking that the vehicle will not be sold, transferred, or alienated in any manner during the pendency of the proceedings.
• The appellant must produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court.
• The appellant must furnish a copy of the Registration Certificate (RC) of the vehicle.
• The appellant must furnish clear photographs of the vehicle from all angles.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant implications for vehicle owners who find their vehicles seized in connection with NDPS cases. The Supreme Court has clarified that the NDPS Act does not bar the interim release of vehicles and that the general powers under the CrPC can be invoked to release vehicles on superdari. This decision provides much-needed relief to vehicle owners who are not directly involved in drug-related offenses and ensures that their vehicles do not deteriorate unnecessarily while being kept in police custody. It also ensures that the owners are not unduly penalized while the trials are ongoing.

The judgment also highlights the importance of interpreting laws in a manner that avoids absurd or unjust outcomes. The Court’s emphasis on the absence of a specific bar in the NDPS Act and the applicability of the CrPC provides a balanced approach to the issue. By imposing conditions on the release, the Court also addresses the concerns raised by the prosecution regarding the potential misuse of released vehicles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assam (2025) INSC 32 marks a significant step in clarifying the legal position on the interim release of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act. The Court has affirmed that the absence of a specific bar in the NDPS Act allows for the application of the CrPC, thereby enabling the release of vehicles on interim custody to their rightful owners. This decision not only provides relief to vehicle owners but also ensures that the law is interpreted in a manner that is fair, just, and avoids absurd results. The Court’s decision balances the need to prevent the misuse of vehicles for drug trafficking with the rights of innocent owners who are not directly involved in the commission of the offense.