Introduction:
The Supreme Court of India, in the case Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 30], addressed the crucial question of interim release of vehicles seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan, explored the complexities surrounding such seizures and provided clarity by outlining four scenarios in which vehicles used to transport contraband substances are seized. The Court emphasized that criminal law must be applied based on the facts of each case and not in a rigid manner. The case stemmed from an appeal challenging the Gauhati High Court’s decision, which upheld the trial court’s refusal to grant interim release of the appellant’s seized truck under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
Arguments of Both Sides:
The petitioner, represented by senior counsel, argued that the NDPS Act does not impose an absolute bar on the interim release of vehicles seized for allegedly transporting contraband. It was contended that the vehicle in question had been used without the petitioner’s knowledge or consent, falling under the third and fourth scenarios identified by the Court. The petitioner emphasized that withholding interim release caused undue financial hardship, as the vehicle’s prolonged detention would result in deterioration and loss of utility. Further, it was argued that Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. explicitly allow for the interim release of seized property pending the conclusion of a trial, subject to conditions laid down by the Court.
On the other hand, the respondents contended that vehicles used to transport contraband substances under the NDPS Act should not be released until the completion of the trial, as such release could potentially impede investigations and lead to tampering with evidence. The State argued that the NDPS Act’s objective of deterring drug trafficking would be undermined if vehicles used in such offences were released prematurely. The respondents also cited the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, which impose a reverse burden of proof on the accused, asserting that the release of vehicles should be restricted to exceptional circumstances.
Court’s Judgment:
The Supreme Court, in its detailed judgment authored by Justice Manmohan, examined the provisions of the NDPS Act and the Cr.P.C., as well as the legal principles governing the release of seized property. The Court identified four distinct scenarios involving vehicle seizures under the NDPS Act: (1) where the owner of the vehicle is the person in possession of the contraband, (2) where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the owner’s agent (e.g., driver or cleaner), (3) where the vehicle is stolen by the accused, and (4) where the contraband is recovered from a third-party occupant of the vehicle without the owner’s knowledge or consent.
The Court held that in the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle or their agent would typically be arrayed as an accused. In such cases, the vehicle would not ordinarily be released on superdari (interim release) until the reverse burden of proof under the NDPS Act is discharged. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegations are made against the owner or their agent, the vehicle should generally be released on super dark, provided the owner furnishes a bond to produce the vehicle when directed by the Court or pay its determined value if confiscation is ultimately ordered. The Court clarified that these guidelines were not rigid and that trial courts could take a different view if the facts so warranted.
The Court rejected the respondent-State’s argument that every vehicle used to transport contraband must remain seized until the trial’s conclusion, highlighting that such an interpretation would lead to absurd results. For instance, it noted that if an accused were arrested with contraband in a private plane, bus, or ship without the management’s knowledge or consent, those assets would have to be seized indefinitely, causing undue harm to innocent owners.
The Supreme Court further observed that interim release under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. is permissible even in NDPS cases, as the NDPS Act does not explicitly prohibit such release. The judgment emphasized that courts must balance the rights of the vehicle owner with the need to deter drug trafficking, ensuring that innocent owners are not penalized without cause. Setting aside the Gauhati High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court directed the trial court to release the appellant’s seized truck in super dark, subject to conditions ensuring its availability during the trial.