The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a registered owner of a vehicle that was seized in connection with a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act case cannot claim interim custody of that vehicle merely on the basis of ownership if he is also accused in the same case. The matter came before the Court in a petition challenging a trial court’s order rejecting an application for the interim release of a vehicle seized during the course of investigation into an NDPS offence. According to the FIR involved in the case, approximately 52 kilograms of narcotics were recovered from the vehicle, and the petitioner—who was the registered owner—was also named as one of the accused alongside others. The petitioner argued before the High Court that the police had completed their investigation and that the vehicle was no longer required for investigative purposes, and thus it should be released to him.
In hearing the contentions, the High Court considered earlier judicial guidance on the issue, including Supreme Court precedent that outlines scenarios for release or non-release of vehicles seized in NDPS cases. Under those judicial principles, the interim release or return of a vehicle is generally not permitted in circumstances where illicit drugs were recovered from the vehicle and where the owner or his agent, such as the driver, was directly involved in the offence. The Court observed that where the contraband is found in the possession of the registered owner or his agent, that situation falls within a category in which release of the vehicle is traditionally not allowed. It noted that the vehicle may only be considered for release in different factual contexts, such as where it was a stolen vehicle or where the contraband was recovered from an unrelated third party occupant, none of which applied in the case at hand.
The High Court emphasised that these judicially recognised scenarios aim to strike a balance between the rights of individuals and the imperatives of law enforcement in handling cases under the stringent NDPS Act, and that a registered owner who is also an accused cannot benefit from general principles pertaining to the return of seized property where the statutory and judicial exceptions apply. Because the petitioner himself was implicated in the FIR and narcotics were recovered from the subject vehicle, he fell squarely within the category of persons who are not ordinarily entitled to have a vehicle released on an interim basis pending the conclusion of trial. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the trial court’s decision to refuse interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner, reinforcing that ownership alone does not confer a right to interim release of property seized in a drug trafficking case when the owner is directly implicated in the alleged offence.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.