The matter arose from a criminal revision petition filed by Anjum Rafiq challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (NDPS Cases), Rajouri, which had rejected his application for interim release of his Hyundai i20 car. The vehicle had been seized in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 8, 21, 22, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The Trial Court had declined the request primarily on two grounds: first, that the petitioner himself was an accused in the case, and second, that the vehicle would ultimately be liable to confiscation under the NDPS Act.

The petitioner claimed to be the registered owner of the vehicle and sought its release on supardari. He contended that prolonged exposure to the elements while lying in the police station would substantially diminish its value. He further submitted that the alleged recovery constituted only an intermediate quantity and that he was willing to furnish any security or undertaking considered necessary by the Court.

The State opposed the application, arguing that the vehicle had been used for transportation of narcotic substances, constituted an important piece of evidence and was liable to confiscation under the NDPS Act. It also expressed apprehension that release of the vehicle could result in its misuse for similar offences. The Trial Court accepted these objections and dismissed the application, prompting the revision petition before the High Court.

High Court’s Examination of Statutory Provisions

Adjudicating the matter, the High Court examined the interplay between Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act. The Court observed that Section 497 BNSS empowers criminal courts to pass appropriate orders regarding custody and disposal of seized property during investigation and trial. The provision envisages preparation of inventories, photographs and videography so that physical production of the property during trial may not always be necessary.

Turning to the NDPS Act, the Court held that while Section 60 contemplates confiscation of conveyances used in the commission of offences, such confiscation is not automatic upon seizure. Rather, under Section 63, the question of confiscation falls for determination only after conclusion of the trial and after granting the owner an opportunity to establish that the vehicle had been used without his knowledge or connivance. The Bench remarked that a seized vehicle can be confiscated by the trial court only on conclusion of the trial when the accused is convicted, acquitted or discharged.

The Court further observed that neither Section 60 nor Section 63 imposes any prohibition against interim release of the vehicle pending trial. In the absence of any express statutory bar, criminal courts are fully competent to exercise their powers under Section 497 BNSS for releasing seized vehicles in appropriate cases, subject to conditions protecting the interests of the prosecution.

Conditions for Interim Release and Practical Considerations

Addressing the State’s contention that the vehicle constituted material evidence, the High Court observed that the requirement can be met by stipulating conditions while releasing the vehicle in interim on supardari. Such conditions may include videography and still photographs to be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, the owner of the vehicle and the accused by signing the said inventory, as well as a restriction on the sale or transfer of the vehicle.

The Bench also emphasised the practical consequences of prolonged seizure, noting that vehicles retained in open police premises invariably deteriorate with time, causing unnecessary economic loss without serving any useful prosecutorial purpose. It observed that such deterioration serves no evidentiary value and imposes an avoidable burden on the owner.

Disposition

Allowing the revision petition, Justice M.A. Chowdhary held that the mere fact that a vehicle used in carrying contraband articles is liable to confiscation under the provisions of the NDPS Act, especially under Section 60(3), is no bar for giving the interim custody of the same to its registered owner before passing a confiscation order. The Court directed the Trial Court to reconsider the petitioner’s application for interim release in light of the observations and to impose suitable safeguards as deemed necessary.