The Rajasthan High Court held that the owner of a vehicle seized in connection with an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), is entitled to the release of the vehicle where the owner himself is not accused in the offence and no incriminating material is found against him. The Court observed that seizure of a vehicle per se does not justify continued detention of the vehicle if the person seeking its release is not an accused and the vehicle has not been used for purpose of commission of the crime attributed to the accused. The Division Bench emphasised that the provisions of the NDPS Act governing seizure and forfeiture must be interpreted in a manner that balances the object of curbing narcotics trafficking with the rights of innocent persons whose property may be incidentally involved in the detection of an offence.
The dispute arose from a case in which a vehicle was seized by police during investigation of an NDPS offence and subsequently produced before the competent Court. The legal owner of the vehicle, who was not named as an accused in the case, filed an application for release of the vehicle contending that he had no involvement in the offence and that the seized vehicle had been used without his knowledge or permission. He argued that continued detention of the vehicle had caused him undue hardship and was unfair, particularly as no evidence linked him personally with the commission of any narcotics-related crime. The trial Court declined the release application, prompting the High Court challenge.
On examining the record, the High Court noted that the owner’s plea was supported by documentary evidence establishing his title to the vehicle and demonstrating that he was not involved in the alleged offence. The bench observed that there was no prima facie material to suggest that the owner had facilitated or participated in the offence, and that the vehicle was merely seized as part of the investigation into the conduct of the actual accused. The Court referred to the language of the NDPS Act, which permits seizure of property used in the commission of an offence but also contemplates the release of such property to lawful owners where appropriate, particularly where the case against the owner is not established or where the owner’s innocence is prima facie evident.
In articulating its reasoning, the High Court underscored that the power to retain seized property is not unfettered and must be exercised in accordance with statutory mandates and principles of natural justice. It observed that continued deprivation of the vehicle from its lawful owner, in absence of any incriminating linkage, would disproportionately prejudice the owner’s rights without furthering the investigative or prosecutorial interests of the case. The Court emphasised that vehicles and other property not essential for prosecution should be released to innocent owners, subject to such conditions as the Court may deem fit to ensure the property’s availability for future evidentiary needs if required.
The High Court further clarified that the standard for release of seized property under the NDPS Act does not equate to acquittal of the accused or determination of guilt, but rather operates to protect the interests of third parties who are tangentially affected by enforcement actions. The purpose of such release orders is to uphold justice and avoid undue hardship to persons not involved in the underlying crime, without impeding the course of the investigation or trial. Accordingly, the bench held that the impugned order refusing release was unsustainable, and allowed the owner’s application.
The Court directed that the vehicle be released to its lawful owner upon fulfilment of statutory formalities and subject to any conditions considered appropriate, such as execution of a bond or undertaking to produce the vehicle when required by the authorities or the Court. It reaffirmed that protection of innocent third-party rights is an essential facet of fair adjudication under the NDPS regime, and that seizures must be calibrated to avoid penalising owners who had no role in the alleged criminal activity.
The judgment provides important guidance on the release of seized property in narcotics cases involving innocent owners, and reinforces that statutory seizure powers must be exercised with due regard to individual rights and procedural safeguards. It signals a judicial insistence on equitable treatment of persons caught in the periphery of criminal investigations, ensuring that enforcement objectives do not unjustly override legitimate proprietary interests where culpability is not established.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.