Interim Release of Vehicles under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court’s Verdict

Introduction
The recent Supreme Court judgment in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (2025 INSC 32) addresses the contentious issue of interim release of vehicles seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court’s decision provides a nuanced perspective on the interplay between the NDPS Act and the general procedural law under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), particularly Sections 451 and 457.

Factual Background
The case arose when the appellant’s truck, registered as AS-01-NC-4355, was seized during a routine police check near Karbi Anglong, Assam. The vehicle was found to carry contraband heroin concealed within it. The main accused, a passenger named Md. Dimpul, was arrested. The appellant argued that neither he nor his driver was aware of the contraband and sought interim release of the truck, citing its significance as his sole means of livelihood.

Key Legal Issues

1. Applicability of CrPC Provisions for Interim Release
   The appellant invoked Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC, which allow courts to pass orders regarding custody and disposal of property pending trial. The respondent-State contended that the NDPS Act, as a special law, overrides general provisions, precluding interim release of vehicles under such circumstances.
2. Presumption of Knowledge and Liability under NDPS Act
   Under Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act, vehicles used for transporting contraband are liable for confiscation unless the owner can prove absence of knowledge or connivance and demonstrate reasonable precautions.

Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Court noted divergent judicial precedents regarding interim release of vehicles in NDPS cases. While some judgments emphasized strict adherence to the NDPS Act’s provisions, others allowed limited relief under the CrPC.

Key Observations:

• No Absolute Bar: The Court held that the NDPS Act does not expressly prohibit the interim release of vehicles. Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC could apply, provided there is no inconsistency with the NDPS Act.
• Balancing Rights and Enforcement Goals: The Court emphasized the need to balance the rights of innocent vehicle owners against the objectives of deterring drug trafficking.
• Evidentiary Value and Preservation: The Court acknowledged the evidentiary significance of seized vehicles but opined that video documentation and undertakings could safeguard the prosecution’s interests without indefinitely impounding the vehicle.

Conclusion
The Court allowed the interim release of the appellant’s truck, subject to stringent conditions:

1. Videography and photographic documentation of the vehicle.
2. Undertakings restricting its sale or transfer.
3. A bond ensuring its availability for confiscation if required.

Significance of the Judgment
This decision reinforces a practical approach to property seizures under the NDPS Act. By affirming that interim release is permissible under specific circumstances, the Court alleviates undue hardships faced by innocent vehicle owners. Simultaneously, the judgment maintains procedural safeguards to ensure the integrity of evidence and effective prosecution.

References

1. Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 INSC 32.
2. Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283.
3. Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Another, (2008) 16 SCC 417.
4. General Insurance Council v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 6 SCC 768.
5. Union of India v. Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379.