Balancing Justice: Interim Release of Vehicles in NDPS Cases


Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: Bishwajit Dey vs. The State of Assam

Citation: 2025 INSC 32. [PDF]

Introduction

This case addresses the significant legal question of whether a vehicle seized in connection with a drug trafficking case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act of 1985 can be released to its owner during the trial. This is particularly relevant when the owner is not accused of any offense. The central issue revolves around the apparent conflict between the NDPS Act, which allows for confiscation of vehicles used in drug trafficking, and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows for interim custody of seized property.

The case originated from a situation where a truck, owned by Bishwajit Dey, was seized after heroin was found concealed within it. While a passenger was arrested and charged, the owner was not implicated in the crime. This raised questions about the rights of vehicle owners who are not involved in drug trafficking.

The Supreme Court's judgment provides crucial guidance on the interplay between the NDPS Act and the CrPC, specifically concerning the interim release of vehicles. It clarifies that while the NDPS Act permits confiscation, it does not explicitly bar the interim release of vehicles, especially when the owner is not involved in the illegal activity. The court emphasizes the need to balance the objectives of the NDPS Act with the rights of vehicle owners.

Case Summary

  1. Bishwajit Dey owned a truck purchased through Equated Monthly Installments, which was his sole source of income.
  2. On April 10, 2023, the truck was stopped at a checking point, and 24.8 grams of heroin were found concealed inside soap boxes within the vehicle.
  3. Md. Dimpul, a passenger, was arrested, and the driver, Joherul Ali, stated that the heroin belonged to Dimpul.
  4. A charge sheet was filed against Md. Dimpul under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, but neither the owner, Bishwajit Dey, nor the driver were named as accused.
  5. Bishwajit Dey sought the release of the truck, citing Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC, arguing that the vehicle was deteriorating at the police station.
  6. The State of Assam argued that the NDPS Act is a complete code and does not allow for interim release of seized conveyances. They also contended that the vehicle is liable for confiscation and releasing it could encourage misuse.
  7. The Supreme Court found no explicit bar in the NDPS Act against the interim release of vehicles when the owner is not implicated. The court allowed the appeal, directing the trial court to release the vehicle on 'superdari' (interim custody) subject to conditions.

Study guide

  1. Primary Legal Issue: The central legal issue was whether a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act could be released to its owner during the trial when the owner was not charged with an offense.
  2. Factual Background: The truck, owned by Bishwajit Dey, was stopped, and heroin was discovered concealed within the vehicle. Although the driver said the drugs belonged to a passenger, the truck was impounded.
  3. Significance of the Charge Sheet: The charge sheet named Md. Dimpul as the accused for carrying heroin but did not implicate the truck owner or driver, indicating their non-involvement.
  4. Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC: These sections deal with the custody and disposal of property during a trial and the seizure of property by the police. The appellant invoked these sections to request the interim release of the truck.
  5. Respondent’s Argument: The State of Assam argued that the NDPS Act does not provide for interim release of seized vehicles and that its objective is to punish drug-related crimes by confiscating the vehicle.
  6. Relevance of Section 60 of the NDPS Act: This section makes any conveyance used in drug trafficking liable for confiscation unless the owner proves it was used without their knowledge, which was used by the respondents to argue against the release of the truck.
  7. Scenarios for Seizure: The Supreme Court distinguished scenarios based on the involvement of the vehicle owner or their agent in the offense or if the drugs were found with third parties, and used these scenarios to determine how to handle the vehicle.
  8. Conditions for Interim Release: The court mandated video and still photographs of the vehicle, and prohibited the owner from selling or transferring it until the trial concludes. The owner must also surrender the vehicle when directed or pay its value.
  9. Court’s Reasoning: The court stated that the NDPS Act has no explicit bar regarding interim release and cited Section 51 of the NDPS Act, which allows the use of Sections 451 and 457 CrPC. The court also noted that keeping a vehicle idle causes its devaluation.
  10. Balancing Objectives: The court aimed to balance the objectives of the NDPS Act with the rights of vehicle owners by allowing interim release where the owner is not implicated, while ensuring that the vehicle remains available and drug trafficking is not encouraged.

Rationale

  1. The Supreme Court observed that the NDPS Act does not specifically prohibit the interim release of seized vehicles.
  2. Section 51 of the NDPS Act allows the application of the CrPC provisions, including Sections 451 and 457, for the custody and disposal of property, as long as they are not inconsistent with the NDPS Act.
  3. The court emphasized that absurd interpretations of laws should be avoided and that if the state's interpretation was accepted, even a private plane or bus could be seized if drugs were found on board without the owner's knowledge.
  4. The court identified four scenarios for drug seizures in vehicles: (1) owner is the person from whom drugs are recovered, (2) drugs are recovered from the owner’s agent, (3) vehicle is stolen and used for drug transport, and (4) drugs are recovered from a third party occupant without the owner’s knowledge.
  5. The court clarified that in scenarios 1 and 2, the vehicle may not be released until the owner proves their innocence, while in scenarios 3 and 4, the vehicle should be released on interim 'superdari'.
  6. The court noted that keeping vehicles in police custody until the end of the trial serves no purpose and leads to deterioration. Releasing it benefits the owner, financial institutions, and the public.
  7. The court cited the Sainaba vs. State of Kerala and Another case, where a vehicle was ordered to be released when the owner had no involvement.

FAQ

Q.1. Can a vehicle seized in an NDPS case be released to its owner during the trial?

Answer: Yes, the Supreme Court has clarified that there is no specific bar in the NDPS Act preventing the interim release of a seized vehicle, especially if the owner is not an accused and there is no evidence of their complicity.

Q.2. What legal provisions allow for interim release of a vehicle in an NDPS case?

Answer: Although the NDPS Act does not explicitly mention interim release, Section 51 of the NDPS Act makes the CrPC applicable as long as it is not inconsistent with the NDPS Act. Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC provide the basis for releasing the vehicle on interim custody.

Q.3. What factors do courts consider when deciding to release a vehicle?

Answer: The courts consider if the owner is an accused, the owner’s involvement in drug trafficking, the vehicle's need as evidence, the risk of misuse, the vehicle's deterioration, and the need to avoid unjust outcomes. The crucial factor is whether the owner can prove they were not involved or aware of the illegal activity.

Q.4. When is a vehicle unlikely to be released on interim custody?

Answer: If the owner is also an accused or there is strong evidence of their involvement in drug trafficking, the court is less likely to grant interim custody.

Q.5. What conditions may be imposed if a vehicle is released on interim custody?

Answer: The court may impose conditions such as detailed documentation through videos and photographs, an undertaking from the owner not to sell or transfer the vehicle, and a bond to guarantee the vehicle’s return or payment of its value if confiscated.

Q.6. What did the Supreme Court say about the NDPS Act being a self-contained code that prohibits interim vehicle release?

Answer: The Supreme Court disagreed, clarifying that the NDPS Act does not restrict the courts' power to release seized vehicles under the CrPC. The NDPS Act is supplemented by the CrPC unless there is an explicit conflict.

Q.7. What are the benefits of releasing a vehicle on interim custody?

Answer: Releasing a vehicle benefits the owner by allowing them to earn income, benefits banks by allowing loan repayments, benefits the public by increasing vehicle availability, and prevents the vehicle from deteriorating.

Q.8. What did the Supreme Court say about the risk of a released vehicle being misused for future drug trafficking?

Answer: The court acknowledged the risk, but emphasized that it should not justify a blanket denial of release. Courts should impose strict conditions to prevent misuse, while respecting ownership rights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Bishwajit Dey vs. The State of Assam offers significant clarity on the interim release of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act. It establishes that while the NDPS Act allows for confiscation, it does not prevent the interim release of vehicles, particularly when the owner is not involved in the drug trafficking. The judgment balances the stringent goals of the NDPS Act with the rights of vehicle owners, ensuring that innocent parties are not unduly penalized. The court's reasoning emphasizes the importance of avoiding absurd legal interpretations and ensuring that vehicles are not left to deteriorate in police custody, while also imposing conditions to prevent misuse and ensure the vehicle's availability for trial when needed.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Trademark Victory for "STREAX": Court Protects Established Brand Against Infringement

A critical analysis of the trademark infringement case, Hygienic Research Institute Private Limited v. Chandan and Shah Trading LLP , 2025:BHC-OS:3609 , reveals key aspects of trademark law and judicial reasoning. The case revolved around the plaintiff's ("Hygienic Research Institute") registered trademark "STREAX" and the defendant's ("Chandan and Shah Trading LLP") use of the mark "STREAK Street". Key points of analysis : Trademark and Goodwill: The plaintiff asserted proprietary rights in its registered trademark "STREAX," emphasizing its extensive use since 2002 and 44 registrations for "STREAX" and its variants. Significant sales turnover, with ₹501 Crores in 2023-24, and advertising expenses of ₹50 Crores, demonstrated the brand's market presence. Infringement and Passing Off: The plaintiff contended that the defendant's mark, "STREAK Street," was deceptively similar to the registered tradem...
Read more