Srinagar: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that vehicles seized under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cannot be left parked in the open premises of police stations to deteriorate during a trial.
Justice M A Chowdhary ruled that because the anti-narcotics legislation contains no specific provision restricting interim custody, special courts can seamlessly invoke their general power under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to return a seized conveyance to its registered owner.
“This court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce… There is no specific bar or 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,” the Court observed.
The Court made these observations while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by Anjum Rafiq, who challenged a September 2025 order of the Additional Sessions Judge (NDPS Cases), Rajouri. The trial court had rejected his application for the interim release of an i20 car seized by the Thannamandi police in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 8, 21, 22, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act.
The vehicle had been intercepted during a routine check at Thannamandi in May 2025, leading to the recovery of an intermediate quantity of heroin weighing approximately 18 to 19 grams, alongside medical strips and silver foil, from the left side of the dashboard.
The prosecution opposed the release of the vehicle, arguing that the owner was directly involved and that the car was liable for mandatory confiscation under Section 60 of the NDPS Act as a means of transporting and concealing contraband.
The state further contended that the special Act does not envisage interim property release during trial.
Dismantling this line of reasoning, the High Court said that under Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act, a vehicle can only be permanently confiscated at the absolute conclusion of a trial, regardless of whether the case ends in a conviction, acquittal, or discharge. The law mandates that the registered owner must first be given a full opportunity to prove that the conveyance was used without their knowledge or connivance.
Therefore, the Court noted, denying temporary custody simply because a vehicle might eventually face forfeiture is a fallacious reading of the law.
The Bench said that the objective of Section 497 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the repealed CrPC), is to ensure that property is not retained by the police or the court for any duration longer than absolutely necessary.
Justice Chowdhary pointed out that while a vehicle is a critical piece of material evidence, the state’s requirement for inspection can easily be secured through alternative administrative safeguards rather than physical detention.
“The said requirement can be met by stipulating conditions while releasing the vehicle in interim on superdari like videography and still photographs to be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the vehicle and accused by signing the said inventory as well as restriction on sale or transfer of the vehicle,” the judgment said.
The Court added that the legislature has not empowered internal bodies, such as Drugs Disposal Committees, to adjudicate interim claims on seized conveyances. That authority rests solely with the special trial courts under the procedural framework of the NDPS Act.
Setting aside the trial court’s order, the High Court directed the immediate release of the vehicle to the registered owner on superdari. The release is conditional upon the police conducting detailed videography and photography to preserve the evidence.
Furthermore, the petitioner must submit an undertaking to the trial court promising not to sell or part with the ownership of the vehicle during the pendency of the proceedings, to surrender the car within one week of an official directive, or to pay its determined fiscal value if a final confiscation order is ultimately passed.
