Seized Truck Used in NDPS Case Is Eligible for Interim Release on Superdari, Supreme Court Directs Conditions

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan heard an appeal by the registered owner of a commercial truck challenging the Gauhati High Court’s dismissal of his petition seeking return of the vehicle seized during an NDPS investigation; the question before the Court was whether the NDPS Act barred interim release of a conveyance used to transport narcotics and, if not, on what terms the vehicle could be released pending trial.

The Court allowed the criminal appeal and clarified that there was no specific bar in the NDPS Act to the interim release of a seized vehicle, and that trial courts could invoke the general powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure in appropriate cases. The Court, noting divergent High Court decisions and the special character of the NDPS legislation, emphasised that any exercise of power had to be fact-sensitive and conditioned to safeguard the prosecution case. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS Act and in view of Section 51 of NDPS Act, the Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. Consequently, the trial Court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim. However, this power would have to be exercised in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of each case.” The Court further explained that four broad scenarios arose in practice and that release would normally be impermissible where the owner or his agent stood accused, but would ordinarily be available on superdari where a third-party occupant alone was charged and no allegation of owner’s knowledge or connivance had been made.

The Court quoted its finding 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,” and stressed that protective conditions could address prosecution concerns. Concluding the appeal, the Court directed the trial court to release the vehicle on superdari subject to specified safeguards: preparation of videography and still photographs authenticated by the investigating officer, the owner and the accused; collection of identifying documents; an undertaking by the owner not to sell or transfer the vehicle during the trial; a bond to produce the vehicle when called; and an obligation to surrender the vehicle within one week of a court direction or to pay its value if ultimately confiscated.

Background The appellant purchased a truck (Regn. No. AS-01-NC-4355) on hire-purchase with monthly EMIs and said it was his sole source of livelihood. On 10 April 2023 the vehicle was stopped at a naka check and police discovered two soap-boxes concealed under tarpaulin containing suspected heroin; field tests and forensic analysis confirmed 24.8 grams of heroin. The police arrested a third-party occupant, Md. Dimpul, and filed a charge-sheet under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act naming him alone; neither the registered owner nor the driver were arrayed as accused. The owner petitioned for release of the vehicle under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC, citing Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and other authorities; the State resisted, relying on the special code of the NDPS Act and precedents that declined interim release. After reviewing inconsistent authorities, the Supreme Court applied first principles and prior decisions, including Sainaba v. State of Kerala, and framed a fact-sensitive approach distinguishing four scenarios (owner accused; agent accused; stolen vehicle; contraband in possession of third-party occupant). The Court found this case fell within the scenario where only a third-party occupant was charged and the investigating agency had not alleged owner’s knowledge or connivance; it therefore allowed interim release on the conditions specified. The Criminal Appeal was allowed and the trial court was directed to implement the protective measures; the owner was restrained from selling or parting with ownership until trial conclusion.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.13370 of 2024) Case Title: Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not indicated in the reported judgment For the Respondent(s): Counsel not indicated in the reported judgment