The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order of the Drug Disposal Committee, Sangareddy District in Crl.M.P.No.0'l ol 2025 Ol. 2811012025 for the return of property in Crime No.1 18 of 2024 on the file of Police Station, Gummadidala for the offences U/s 8(c) R/w 21(C), 22(C),27( ),25 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 and to direct the Police Station, Gummadidala to return the White Colour Brezza bearing No.TS08FQ4140 vide Chassis No.MA3NYFB1SHK305230, Engine No. D1345538792 to its rightful owner i.e., the petitioner for the ends of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S. Ram Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the Respondent, The Gourt made the following: ORDER: ..-,-ffi*_* - j THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL P ETITION No.15341 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section t 2g of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for sho t ,BNSS') by the petitioner/accused No.'l seeking to set aside the order dated 28.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.p.No.01 of 2O2S t,r the Drug Disposal Committee, Sangareddy District. By the mpugned order, the application filed by the petitioner seekin,l return of property in Crime No.118 of 2024 of Gummadicrla police Station, registered for the offences under Section; g(c) r/w 21(c), 22(c), 25, 27(a) and 29 of The Narcotic I) ugs And Psychotropic Substances, Act, 19g5 (for short ,NDpS \ct'), was dismissed.

2. Heard Mr.S.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for cetitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additicr al public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner subn i ted that pursuant to the seizure of petitioner,s vehicle i.e., ce - bearing No.TS08FQ4'140, he has approached the concerned r )ourt i.e., 2 I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sanga Reddy (for short 'trial Court')' praying for release of car and two mobile phones and the car. The trial Court has ordered for release of mobile phones, but dismissed the petition with regard to the release of car bearing No.IS08FQ4140' lt was observed by the trial Court that vehicle is liable to be confiscated by the competent authority i.e., Drug Disposal Committee' and hence' the petitioner is not entitled for release of car' Pursuant to the said order dated 31.01.2025, the petitioner herein approached the Superintendent of Police, Sangareddy-cum-Chairman' Drug Disposal Committee, Sangareddy' with a prayer to release the was dismissed bY the car. However, the said Petition Committee on 28.10.2025 for the Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present petition praying this Court to set aside the impugned order' reasons stated therein

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the Drug Disposal Committee under Section 52 (A) of the NDPS Act is empowered to dispose of the property being confiscatedtotheState.TheDrugDisposa|Committeehas rightly passed the impugned order and the same need not be interfered with. Hence' he prayed to dismiss the petition' l 3 1

5. Perused the record.

6. The vehicle of the petitioner is seized during :l e course of investigation for the offences under Sections 8(c) r'w.21(c), 22(c), 25, 27(a) and 29 of NDPS Act. The petitione- ctaims to be the owner of the car. Sections 60 and 52(A) of t DpS Act are relevant in this regard and the same are extract:d herein for the sake of reference: "60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, art :les and conveyances to confiscation: (1) Whenever any offence punishable under this A(t has been committed, the narcotic drug, psychotropic subs,: rce, controlled substance, opium poppy, coca plant, carr abis plant, materials, apparatus and utensils in respect of u rich or by means of which such offence has been comrr ted, shall be liable to confiscation. (2) Any narcotic drug or psycholropic substan<:r oT controlled substances laMully produced, imported irter- State, exported inter-State, imported into lndia, transpr ted, manufactured, possessed, used, purchased or sold € ong with, or rn addition to, any narcotic drug or psychct :pi- substance or controlled substances which is lia confiscatron under sub-section (l) and the recept,:les, packages and coverings in which any narcotic drt I or psychotropic substance or controlled substances, mat,_, als, apparatus or utensils liable to confiscation under ;ub- section (1) is found, and the other contents, if any, ol uch receptacles or packages shall likewise be liab t to confiscation. (3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any nar ,otic drug or psychotropic substance or controllld lubjtan: , or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section .) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it wt so used without the knowledge or connivance of the ovner himself, his agent, if any, and the person_in_charge ,) the 4 -I-\ :*-1 \ animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all ieasonaole preciutions against such use " Iheorder is dated 28'10'2025' The record discloses that 7. the panchanama was conducted on 18'06'2024 under which the vehicle was seized, which reveals that it was seized more than one year ago. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein are for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w' 21(c)'22(c)' 25, 27(a) and 29 of NDPS Act' As far as the Drugs are concerned under the NDPS Act, the Drug Disposal Committee is the competent authority to dispose of the same' The trial Court has given a wrong finding with regard to release of the vehicle stating that it is liable to be conflscated' However' when it comes to vehicles seized, during the course of investigation' interim custody of the vehicle can be given to the owner of the vehicle, pursuant to proper identification' acknowledgment and receipt and on imposing certain conditions' so that the vehicle be produced before the Court, whenever required during the course of trial. The condition stipulated in Section 60 (3) of NDPS Act has to be taken note of by the concerned Court while attending to such petitions' The vehicle if left unused' it would be prone to weather conditions and would get depreciated in - 5 value. Further, it may not be useful later on, if further r elay is caused in releasing the vehicle. ln Sunderbhai Ambat,z Desai vs. sfafe of Gujaratl ; the Apex court has herd that th. rehicre involved in the case, has to be returned to the owner of t re said vehicle.

8. Thus, a vehicle seized under NDpS Act sl all be confiscated unless the owner proves that it is used witt rut his knowledge or connivance and in case if the owner prcr es his innocence, the vehicle shall not be confiscated. Furth rr, the vehicle can be confiscated only after a full_fledged trial. I ection 52A envisages that after confiscation, the Drug f,i ;posal Commlttee gets the authority to dispose of the propx rty in accordance with law.

9. ln Tarun Kumar Majhi v. State of West Bengir 2, Court has observed that: "However, the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicie-c ln prove that the vehicle was used by the accus :d person without the owner's linowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reas"onerl te precautions against such use of the seized vehir le by the accused person.,, ' zoo: 1o,1 arn 1sc; o:a - Criminal Appeat No.t305 of 2O2s 6 \ -+ti \t \ - '10. ln Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam3, the Apex Court has observed that: "The provisions of the NDPS Act do not bar the concerned Court from exercising its discretion, to release the vehicle in interim custody. While the Act provides for confiscation in appropriate cases, it does not preclude the Court from granting interim release of the vehicle where the circumstances so warrant. It has further observed that: "The peculiar factual matrix warrants a more pragmatic approach-. lt would, therefore, be expedient in the interest of justice to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the appellant, as the overall circumstances clearly indicate his bonafides and absence of any involvement in the drugs being carried in the vehicle."

11. The petitioner is the original owner as per the R'C filed by the petitioner which is part of record. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the principles laid down in the above cited decision, the vehicle is bound to be released. Hence, the impugned order dated 28.10'2025 passed by the Drug Disposal Committee is hereby set aside and this Court is inclined to grant interim custody of the said vehicle in question on condition of petitioner executing a personal bond for a;;gn of Rs.1,00,0001 with two sureties for a like sum each r zozs tNsc a2 1 to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Dislr ct and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, and also on his furni:;1 ing an undertaking to the effect that he shall not alienate the rehicle, shall not change the physical features of the same till the disposal of the above crime and shall produce the ve ricle as and when required. The photographs of the said vehicle is to be taken properly, and the petitioner shall not alienate thr: vehicle till the disposal of confiscation proceedings.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sh a I stand closed. To, SD/. K.3IAVANI SWAMY ASSlS". rNT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SI CTION OFFICER

1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy 2. The Station House Officer, Gummadidala Police Station, Sa tgareddy District 3. One CC to Sri. S.Ram Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stat€ rf Telangana, Hyderabad IOUT] 5. Two CD Copies. PSK /PSL l I I l P HIGH COURT DATED:241'1112025 ORDER CRLP.No.15341 of 2025 -r:.. - .,a,r.Ora)\ ..- .'. \- J ?L, ,7. t.t tr; -: ./ -+.y' DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETIflOT' tA-t)