State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. vs Party(s)

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri S.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of the present revision, the revisionist has assailed the order dated dated 11.08.2025, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC- I)/Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raebareli (in short "trial Court") on the application for releasing the vehicle, titled as Furkan Vs. State of U.P., in Case Crime No.121 of 2025, under Sections 8/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short "Act of 1985") of Police Station - Mohangan, District - Amethi.

3. Vide impugned order dated 11.08.2025, the application of the revisionist seeking release of vehicle has been rejected.

4. It is stated that the trial Court failed to take note of Section 60(3) of Act of 1985 and also the facts of the case as also the law on the issue as would appear from paragraphs 7 to 13 of the impugned order, whereby the application seeking release of the vehicle bearing registration no.UP 41 AK 8277 has been rejected.

5. It is also stated that the trial Court has failed to take note of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, in which, certain observations have been made regarding release of vehicles and goods seized and also the judgment passed by this Court at Allahabad in Application U/S 482 No. 22859 of 2024 (Birendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 12.05.2025 as also judgement passed by High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. MC. No. 2138 of 2017 (B.Hassainar Azeez Vs. State of Kerala) decided on 12.04.2017 as also the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 40.

6. It is also stated that in the aforesaid background of the case, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.

7. Learned AGA opposed the instant revision. 2 CRLR No. 1048 of 2025

8. Considered the aforesaid and perused the records.

9. Relevant paragraphs of the impugned order are extracted herein-under :- र्ि्व आवेदन के आवेदनकतार् फु रकान है। "7. मु०अ०सं० 121/2025 अन्तगर्त धारा 8/22 एन०डी०पी०एस० एक्ट की फदर् बरामदगी के अवलोकन से िविदत होता है िक िदनांक 08.05.2025 को थाना मोहनगंज की पुिलस ्षारा दौरान गश्त बोलेरो वाहन सं० UP 41 AK 8277 को रोका गया, िजसे सलमान उफर् सन्ना पु्ऴ मन्तिजर चला रहा था। अिभयु्व सलमान की तलाशी में उसके पास से 40 ्षाम अवैध स्मैक बरामद हुआ। ्ऺश्नगत वाहन बोलेरो की तलाशी में वाहन की अगली िडग्गी से प्लािस्टक में 25 ्षाम अवैध स्मैक बरामद हुआ। इस ्ऺकार, ्ऺश्नगत वाहन, से अवैध मादक पदाथर् स्मैक बरामद हुआ है, िजसकी िनमु 8. उल्लेखनीय है िक ्ऺाथर् फु रकान ्षारा शपथ प्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत कर कथन िकया गया है िक ्ऺश्नगत वाहन मिहन््शा बोलेरो सं० UP 41 AK 8277 को उसका सगा भाई सलमान उफर् सन्ना िबन। उसकी जानकारी व सहमित के कहीं ले गया था। ्ऺाथर् का अिभयोग से कोई वास्ता, सरोकार नहीं है। 9. एन०डी०पी०एस० अिधिनयम के अंतगर्त अवैध मादक पदाथर् के पिरवहन में ्ऺयु्व िकसी वाहन की िनमु र्ि्व के संबंध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ्षारा िविध ्िवस्था िव्षजीत डे बनाम असम राज्य 2025 एस०सी०सी० ऑनलाइन 40 के ्ऺस्तर संख्या 29 व 30 में या िविधक अिभमत ्ऺितपािदत िकया है िक- “29. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the acrused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourth'y, where the contraband is seized / recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner's knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused.

30. This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated."

10. ्ऺस्तुत मामले में ्ऺाथर् फु रकान ्ऺथम सूचना िरपोटर् में नािमत अिभयु्व नहीं है, िकन्तु उसके वाहन मिहन््शा बोलेरो सं० UP 41 AK 8277 में ्ऱाईवर सलमान उफर् स्ऴा, जो िक ्ऺाथर् का सगा भाई है, के ्षारा ्ऺश््शगत वाहन का ्ऺयोग अवैध मादक पदाथर् के पिरवहन में िकया जा रहा था, िजसके संबंध में उसने कोई युि्वयु्व स्प्िीकरण / ्िाख्यापन अपने िनमु 11. इस िनमु र्ि्व आवेदन दािण्डक ्ऺकीणर्वाद संख्या-575/2025 की प्ऴावली भी संलग्न है, िजसे मु०अ०सं० 121/2025 के अिभयु्व सलमान उफर् सन्ना ्षारा बतौर मुख्तारेखास, वाहन स्वामी मो० फु रकान दािखल िकया गया था, िजसके प्ष में वाहन स्वामी मो० फु रकान र्ि्व आवेदन प्ऴावली के साथ पूवर् में ्ऺश्नगत वाहन के संबंध में िनमु र्ि्व आवेदन में नहीं िदया है। 3 CRLR No. 1048 of 2025 र्ि्व आवेदन िदनांक 10.07.2025 ्षारा उ्व वाहन के सम्बन्ध में पॉवर ऑफ अटॉनर् जारी की गयी थी। उ्व िनमु को इस न्यायालय ्षारा बल न िदये जाने के कारण िनरस्त िकया गया था। 12. मामले के तथ्यों एवं पिरिस्थितयों के पिरशीलन के उपरांत यह कहना समीचीन होगा िक ्ऺस्तुत मामला, माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय की उपरविणत िविध ्िवस्था के पैरा 29 में विणत चार पिरिस्थितयों में से ि्षतीय पिरिस्थित के अन्तगर्त आता है, िजसमें अवैध मादक पदाथर् वाहन स्वामी के ्षारा िनयु्व एजेन्ट जैसे ्ऱाइवर या झीनर के कब्जे से बरामद हुआ हो। उपरो्व िविध ्िवस्था के ्ऺस्तर संख्या 30 में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ्षारा यह अवधािरत िकया गया है िक ्ऺस्तर 29 में विणत ्ऺथम दो पिरिस्थितयों में वाहन को तब तक िनमु र््व नहीं िकया जा सकता, जब तक उसके स्वामी / अिभयु्व ्षारा िवपरीत िसि्धभार का िनवार्ह न कर िदया जाये। इस ्ऺकरण में ्ऺश्नगल वाहन के वाहन स्वामी ्षारा यह युि्वयु्व रूप से ्ऺमािणत नहीं िकया गया है िक ्ऺश््शगत वाहन इस ्ऺकरण में िकस ्ऺकार संिलप्त हुआ है अथवा वाहन के अवैध मादक पदाथर् के पिरवहन हेतु ्ऺयोग के संबंध में उसे कोई ्ञान नहीं था या उसकी कोई मौन सहमित सिम्मिलत नहीं थी, जबिक ्ऺश्नगत वाहन के इस ्ऺकरण में िनरु्ध होने के उपरांत उसके ्षारा ्ऺकरण के अिभयु्व व अपने सगे भाई मो० सलमान के प्ष में ्ऺश्नगत वाहन के बाबत िविधक कायर्वाही करने हेतु मुख्तारेखास िनष्पािदत िकया गया था, जो इस तथ्य को ्योतक है, िक ्ऺाथर् फु रकान को ्ऺ्शगत वाहन के िकसी आपरािधक गितिविध में ्ऺयु्व होने व उसके िनरु्ध होने की जानकारी अवश्य रही होगी, िकन्तु उसके ्षारा वास्तिवक तथ्यों को छु पाते हुए यह ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया है। 13. अतः माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय की उपरविणत िविध ्िवस्था में िदये गये िस्धान्तों एवं ्ऺकरण के समस्त तथ्यों एवं पिरिस्थितयों को दृि्िगत रखते हुए इस स्तर पर न्यायालय के मत में उ्व वाहन को अवमु्व िकये जाने के आधार पयार्प्त नहीं है। 14. तद्नुसार ्ऺाथर् फु रकान पु्ऴ मो० मुन्तिजर िनवासी ्षाम बहुआ, थाना मोहनगंज, जनपद अमेठी ्षारा मुकदमा अपराध संख्या 121/2025, धारा 8/22 एन०डी०पी०एस० एक्ट, थाना- मोहनगंज, िजला- अमेठी के र्ि्व ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ बाबत वाहन बोलेरो सं० UP 41 AK 8277 िनरस्त िकया जाता है। बाद मामले में ्ऺस्तुत िनमु आवश्यक कावर्याही प्ऴावली िनयमानुसार दािखल दफ्तर हो।

10. Law on the issue has been crystalized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey (Supra). The relevant paras of the report i.e. paras 23 to 40 are extracted herein-under. "Court's Reasoning : No Specific Bar/Restriction under the NDPS Act for release in the interim of any seized vehicle.

23. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having examined the issue at hand, this Court finds that different courts have taken divergent views with regard to interim release of conveyances during the pendency of the trial in NDPS cases. While the courts in cases referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent State of Assam have not released the vehicles in the interim during NDPS trial, yet in General Insurance Council v. State of A.P. [(2010) 6 SCC 768] ; Gurbinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2016 SCC OnLine P&H 16026] ; Tej Singh v. State of Haryana [2020 SCC OnLine P&H 4679] ; Shams Tavrej v. Union of India [2023 SCC OnLine All 1154] ; Manakram v. State of M.P. [2024 SCC OnLine MP 9438] ; Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab [2023 SCC OnLine P&H 7219] ; Kawal Jeet Kaur v. State of Karnataka [2024 SCC OnLine Kar 2713] and Bhagirath v. State of Rajasthan [2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3546] , the courts have directed release of the vehicles in the interim in NDPS cases.

24. The judgments of this Court are confined to their facts or in the context of the expression “owner” and do not lay down any general proposition of law. Consequently, the issue would have to be examined on first principles.

25. Upon a reading of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view that the 4 CRLR No. 1048 of 2025 seized vehicles can be confiscated by the trial court only on conclusion of the trial when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. Further, even where the court is of the view that the vehicle is liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity of hearing to the person who may claim any right to the seized vehicle before passing an order of confiscation. However, the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner's knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the seized vehicle by the accused person.

26. This Court is further of the opinion that there is no specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case.

27. In the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS Act and in view of Section 51 of the NDPS Act, the Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457CrPC for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. Consequently, the trial court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim. However, this power would have to be exercised in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of each case. Courts will lean against any construction that would produce an absurd or unjust result

28. It is trite law that the more absurd a suggested conclusion of construction is, the more the court will lean against that conclusion. That is ordinarily so whether one is construing a contract or a statute. [See : Hatzl v. XL Insurance Co. Ltd. [Hatzl v. XL Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 1 WLR 470 : 2010 Bus LR 50 : 2009 EWCA Civ 223] ]

29. The presumption against absurdity is found in the brief observation of Lord Saville agreeing with his colleagues in the case of Noone [R. (Noone) v. Governor of Drake Hall Prison [R. (Noone) v. Governor of Drake Hall Prison, (2010) 1 WLR 1743 : 2010 UKSC 30] ]. Lord Saville says simply : (WLR p. 1755, para 41) “41. I would allow this appeal. For the reasons given by Lord Phillips and Lord Mance, I have no doubt that by one route or another the legislation must be construed so as to avoid what would otherwise produce irrational and indefensible results that Parliament could not have intended.”

30. If the respondent State's interpretation is accepted, then in a case where an accused is arrested carrying heroin in a private plane or a private bus or a private ship without the knowledge and consent of the management and staff of the private plane or bus or ship, the plane/bus/ship would have to be seized till the trial is over!

31. Though the risk of misuse by the accused or third party of the same plane or bus or ship cannot be ruled out, yet the courts do not take coercive action on the basis of fear or suspicion or hypothetical situation.

32. Undoubtedly, the vehicle is a critical piece of material evidence that may be required for inspection to substantiate the prosecution's case, yet the said requirement can be met by stipulating conditions while releasing the vehicle in interim on superdari like videography and still photographs to be authenticated by the investigating officer, owner of the vehicle and accused by signing the said inventory as well as restriction on sale/transfer of the vehicle. Broadly speaking there are four scenarios 5 CRLR No. 1048 of 2025

33. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized/recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner's knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused.

34. This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated.

35. This Court clarifies that the aforesaid discussion should not be taken as laying down a rigid formula as it will be open to the trial courts to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant. Supreme Court in similar facts in Sainaba v. State of Kerala [(2024) 13 SCC 382 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1784] has released the vehicle

36. In the present case, this Court finds that after conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Karbi Anglong. In the said charge-sheet, neither the owner of the vehicle nor the driver has been arrayed as an accused. Only a third-party occupant has been arrayed as an accused. The police after investigation has not found that the appellant i.e. the owner of the vehicle, has allowed his vehicle to transport contraband drugs/substances with his knowledge or connivance or that he or his agent had not taken all reasonable precautions against such use. Consequently, the conveyance is entitled to be released on superdari.

37. In fact, the Supreme Court in similar facts in Sainaba v. State of Kerala [2024) 13 SCC 382 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1784] , has held as under : (SCC paras 6-9) “6. The appellant has urged inter alia that as per Section 36-C read with Section 51 of the NDPS Act, Criminal Procedure Code would be applicable for proceedings by a Special Court under NDPS Act and Section 451 has an inbuilt provision to impose any specific condition on the appellant while releasing the vehicle. The appellant is undoubtedly the registered owner of the vehicle but had not participated in the offence as alleged by the prosecution nor had knowledge of the alleged transaction.

7. The learned counsel seeks to rely on the judgment of this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1943] opining that it is no use to 6 CRLR No. 1048 of 2025 keep such seized vehicles at police station for a long period and it is open to the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking a bond and a guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time.

8. On hearing the learned counsel for parties and in the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the legal provisions referred aforesaid, we are of the view that this is an appropriate case for release of the vehicle on terms and conditions to be determined by the Special Court.

9. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving parties to bear their own costs.” If the vehicle in the present case is kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose

38. This Court is also of the view that if the vehicle in the present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This Court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce.

39. On the contrary, if the vehicle in question is released, it would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able to earn his livelihood), to the bank/financier (who would be repaid the loan disbursed by it) and to the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be available for transportation of goods) Conclusion

40. Consequently, the present criminal appeal is allowed with directions to the trial court to release the vehicle in question in the interim on superdari after preparing a video and still photographs of the vehicle and after obtaining all information/documents necessary for identification of the vehicle, which shall be authenticated by the investigating officer, owner of the vehicle and accused by signing the same. Further, the appellant shall not sell or part with the ownership of the vehicle till conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an undertaking to the trial court that he shall surrender the vehicle within one week of being so directed and/or pay the value of the vehicle (determined according to income tax law on the date of its release), if so ultimately directed by the Court."

11. From a conjoint perusal of the order impugned dated 11.08.2025 and the above referred paras of the judgment passed in the case of Bishwajit Dey (Supra), this Court finds that while rejecting the prayer to release the vehicle in issue the trial Court ought to have considered the following aspect, which have not been considered in its true spirit. (a) whether the owner is an accused. (b) whether reverse burden of proof has been discharged by the owner. In other words, whether owner has proved that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner's knowledge or connivance and that he has taken all reasonable precautions against such use of seized vehicle by the accused person. (c) Effect of expression 'May' used with regard to second category of cases in para 34 of the judgment referred above read with para 7 CRLR No. 1048 of 2025 35 of the same, which says "This Court clarifies that the aforesaid discussion should not be taken as laying down a rigid formula as it will be open to the trial courts to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant."

12. For the aforesaid, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.08.2025 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court to pass afresh order on the issue of release of vehicle of the revisionist expeditiously.

13. Liberty is also given to the revisionist to move fresh application on the subject. September 23, 2025 Mohit Singh/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri S.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of the present revision, the revisionist has assailed the order dated dated 11.08.2025, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC- I)/Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raebareli (in short "trial Court") on the application for releasing the vehicle, titled as Furkan Vs. State of U.P., in Case Crime No.121 of 2025, under Sections 8/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short "Act of 1985") of Police Station - Mohangan, District - Amethi.

3. Vide impugned order dated 11.08.2025, the application of the revisionist seeking release of vehicle has been rejected.

4. It is stated that the trial Court failed to take note of Section 60(3) of Act of 1985 and also the facts of the case as also the law on the issue as would appear from paragraphs 7 to 13 of the impugned order, whereby the application seeking release of the vehicle bearing registration no.UP 41 AK 8277 has been rejected.

5. It is also stated that the trial Court has failed to take note of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, in which, certain observations have been made regarding release of vehicles and goods seized and also the judgment passed by this Court at Allahabad in Application U/S 482 No. 22859 of 2024 (Birendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 12.05.2025 as also judgement passed by High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. MC. No. 2138 of 2017 (B.Hassainar Azeez Vs. State of Kerala) decided on 12.04.2017 as also the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 40.

6. It is also stated that in the aforesaid background of the case, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.

7. Learned AGA opposed the instant revision. 2 CRLR No. 1048 of 2025

8. Considered the aforesaid and perused the records.

9. Relevant paragraphs of the impugned order are extracted herein-under :- र्ि्व आवेदन के आवेदनकतार् फु रकान है। "7. मु०अ०सं० 121/2025 अन्तगर्त धारा 8/22 एन०डी०पी०एस० एक्ट की फदर् बरामदगी के अवलोकन से िविदत होता है िक िदनांक 08.05.2025 को थाना मोहनगंज की पुिलस ्षारा दौरान गश्त बोलेरो वाहन सं० UP 41 AK 8277 को रोका गया, िजसे सलमान उफर् सन्ना पु्ऴ मन्तिजर चला रहा था। अिभयु्व सलमान की तलाशी में उसके पास से 40 ्षाम अवैध स्मैक बरामद हुआ। ्ऺश्नगत वाहन बोलेरो की तलाशी में वाहन की अगली िडग्गी से प्लािस्टक में 25 ्षाम अवैध स्मैक बरामद हुआ। इस ्ऺकार, ्ऺश्नगत वाहन, से अवैध मादक पदाथर् स्मैक बरामद हुआ है, िजसकी िनमु 8. उल्लेखनीय है िक ्ऺाथर् फु रकान ्षारा शपथ प्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत कर कथन िकया गया है िक ्ऺश्नगत वाहन मिहन््शा बोलेरो सं० UP 41 AK 8277 को उसका सगा भाई सलमान उफर् सन्ना िबन। उसकी जानकारी व सहमित के कहीं ले गया था। ्ऺाथर् का अिभयोग से कोई वास्ता, सरोकार नहीं है। 9. एन०डी०पी०एस० अिधिनयम के अंतगर्त अवैध मादक पदाथर् के पिरवहन में ्ऺयु्व िकसी वाहन की िनमु र्ि्व के संबंध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ्षारा िविध ्िवस्था िव्षजीत डे बनाम असम राज्य 2025 एस०सी०सी० ऑनलाइन 40 के ्ऺस्तर संख्या 29 व 30 में या िविधक अिभमत ्ऺितपािदत िकया है िक- “29. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the acrused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourth'y, where the contraband is seized / recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner's knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused.

30. This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated."

10. ्ऺस्तुत मामले में ्ऺाथर् फु रकान ्ऺथम सूचना िरपोटर् में नािमत अिभयु्व नहीं है, िकन्तु उसके वाहन मिहन््शा बोलेरो सं० UP 41 AK 8277 में ्ऱाईवर सलमान उफर् स्ऴा, जो िक ्ऺाथर् का सगा भाई है, के ्षारा ्ऺश््शगत वाहन का ्ऺयोग अवैध मादक पदाथर् के पिरवहन में िकया जा रहा था, िजसके संबंध में उसने कोई युि्वयु्व स्प्िीकरण / ्िाख्यापन अपने िनमु 11. इस िनमु र्ि्व आवेदन दािण्डक ्ऺकीणर्वाद संख्या-575/2025 की प्ऴावली भी संलग्न है, िजसे मु०अ०सं० 121/2025 के अिभयु्व सलमान उफर् सन्ना ्षारा बतौर मुख्तारेखास, वाहन स्वामी मो० फु रकान दािखल िकया गया था, िजसके प्ष में वाहन स्वामी मो० फु रकान र्ि्व आवेदन प्ऴावली के साथ पूवर् में ्ऺश्नगत वाहन के संबंध में िनमु र्ि्व आवेदन में नहीं िदया है। 3 CRLR No. 1048 of 2025 र्ि्व आवेदन िदनांक 10.07.2025 ्षारा उ्व वाहन के सम्बन्ध में पॉवर ऑफ अटॉनर् जारी की गयी थी। उ्व िनमु को इस न्यायालय ्षारा बल न िदये जाने के कारण िनरस्त िकया गया था। 12. मामले के तथ्यों एवं पिरिस्थितयों के पिरशीलन के उपरांत यह कहना समीचीन होगा िक ्ऺस्तुत मामला, माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय की उपरविणत िविध ्िवस्था के पैरा 29 में विणत चार पिरिस्थितयों में से ि्षतीय पिरिस्थित के अन्तगर्त आता है, िजसमें अवैध मादक पदाथर् वाहन स्वामी के ्षारा िनयु्व एजेन्ट जैसे ्ऱाइवर या झीनर के कब्जे से बरामद हुआ हो। उपरो्व िविध ्िवस्था के ्ऺस्तर संख्या 30 में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ्षारा यह अवधािरत िकया गया है िक ्ऺस्तर 29 में विणत ्ऺथम दो पिरिस्थितयों में वाहन को तब तक िनमु र््व नहीं िकया जा सकता, जब तक उसके स्वामी / अिभयु्व ्षारा िवपरीत िसि्धभार का िनवार्ह न कर िदया जाये। इस ्ऺकरण में ्ऺश्नगल वाहन के वाहन स्वामी ्षारा यह युि्वयु्व रूप से ्ऺमािणत नहीं िकया गया है िक ्ऺश््शगत वाहन इस ्ऺकरण में िकस ्ऺकार संिलप्त हुआ है अथवा वाहन के अवैध मादक पदाथर् के पिरवहन हेतु ्ऺयोग के संबंध में उसे कोई ्ञान नहीं था या उसकी कोई मौन सहमित सिम्मिलत नहीं थी, जबिक ्ऺश्नगत वाहन के इस ्ऺकरण में िनरु्ध होने के उपरांत उसके ्षारा ्ऺकरण के अिभयु्व व अपने सगे भाई मो० सलमान के प्ष में ्ऺश्नगत वाहन के बाबत िविधक कायर्वाही करने हेतु मुख्तारेखास िनष्पािदत िकया गया था, जो इस तथ्य को ्योतक है, िक ्ऺाथर् फु रकान को ्ऺ्शगत वाहन के िकसी आपरािधक गितिविध में ्ऺयु्व होने व उसके िनरु्ध होने की जानकारी अवश्य रही होगी, िकन्तु उसके ्षारा वास्तिवक तथ्यों को छु पाते हुए यह ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया है। 13. अतः माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय की उपरविणत िविध ्िवस्था में िदये गये िस्धान्तों एवं ्ऺकरण के समस्त तथ्यों एवं पिरिस्थितयों को दृि्िगत रखते हुए इस स्तर पर न्यायालय के मत में उ्व वाहन को अवमु्व िकये जाने के आधार पयार्प्त नहीं है। 14. तद्नुसार ्ऺाथर् फु रकान पु्ऴ मो० मुन्तिजर िनवासी ्षाम बहुआ, थाना मोहनगंज, जनपद अमेठी ्षारा मुकदमा अपराध संख्या 121/2025, धारा 8/22 एन०डी०पी०एस० एक्ट, थाना- मोहनगंज, िजला- अमेठी के र्ि्व ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ बाबत वाहन बोलेरो सं० UP 41 AK 8277 िनरस्त िकया जाता है। बाद मामले में ्ऺस्तुत िनमु आवश्यक कावर्याही प्ऴावली िनयमानुसार दािखल दफ्तर हो।

10. Law on the issue has been crystalized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey (Supra). The relevant paras of the report i.e. paras 23 to 40 are extracted herein-under. "Court's Reasoning : No Specific Bar/Restriction under the NDPS Act for release in the interim of any seized vehicle.

23. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having examined the issue at hand, this Court finds that different courts have taken divergent views with regard to interim release of conveyances during the pendency of the trial in NDPS cases. While the courts in cases referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent State of Assam have not released the vehicles in the interim during NDPS trial, yet in General Insurance Council v. State of A.P. [(2010) 6 SCC 768] ; Gurbinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2016 SCC OnLine P&H 16026] ; Tej Singh v. State of Haryana [2020 SCC OnLine P&H 4679] ; Shams Tavrej v. Union of India [2023 SCC OnLine All 1154] ; Manakram v. State of M.P. [2024 SCC OnLine MP 9438] ; Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab [2023 SCC OnLine P&H 7219] ; Kawal Jeet Kaur v. State of Karnataka [2024 SCC OnLine Kar 2713] and Bhagirath v. State of Rajasthan [2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3546] , the courts have directed release of the vehicles in the interim in NDPS cases.

24. The judgments of this Court are confined to their facts or in the context of the expression “owner” and do not lay down any general proposition of law. Consequently, the issue would have to be examined on first principles.

25. Upon a reading of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view that the 4 CRLR No. 1048 of 2025 seized vehicles can be confiscated by the trial court only on conclusion of the trial when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. Further, even where the court is of the view that the vehicle is liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity of hearing to the person who may claim any right to the seized vehicle before passing an order of confiscation. However, the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner's knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the seized vehicle by the accused person.

26. This Court is further of the opinion that there is no specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case.

27. In the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS Act and in view of Section 51 of the NDPS Act, the Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457CrPC for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. Consequently, the trial court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim. However, this power would have to be exercised in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of each case. Courts will lean against any construction that would produce an absurd or unjust result

28. It is trite law that the more absurd a suggested conclusion of construction is, the more the court will lean against that conclusion. That is ordinarily so whether one is construing a contract or a statute. [See : Hatzl v. XL Insurance Co. Ltd. [Hatzl v. XL Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 1 WLR 470 : 2010 Bus LR 50 : 2009 EWCA Civ 223] ]

29. The presumption against absurdity is found in the brief observation of Lord Saville agreeing with his colleagues in the case of Noone [R. (Noone) v. Governor of Drake Hall Prison [R. (Noone) v. Governor of Drake Hall Prison, (2010) 1 WLR 1743 : 2010 UKSC 30] ]. Lord Saville says simply : (WLR p. 1755, para 41) “41. I would allow this appeal. For the reasons given by Lord Phillips and Lord Mance, I have no doubt that by one route or another the legislation must be construed so as to avoid what would otherwise produce irrational and indefensible results that Parliament could not have intended.”

30. If the respondent State's interpretation is accepted, then in a case where an accused is arrested carrying heroin in a private plane or a private bus or a private ship without the knowledge and consent of the management and staff of the private plane or bus or ship, the plane/bus/ship would have to be seized till the trial is over!

31. Though the risk of misuse by the accused or third party of the same plane or bus or ship cannot be ruled out, yet the courts do not take coercive action on the basis of fear or suspicion or hypothetical situation.

32. Undoubtedly, the vehicle is a critical piece of material evidence that may be required for inspection to substantiate the prosecution's case, yet the said requirement can be met by stipulating conditions while releasing the vehicle in interim on superdari like videography and still photographs to be authenticated by the investigating officer, owner of the vehicle and accused by signing the said inventory as well as restriction on sale/transfer of the vehicle. Broadly speaking there are four scenarios 5 CRLR No. 1048 of 2025

33. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized/recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner's knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused.

34. This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated.

35. This Court clarifies that the aforesaid discussion should not be taken as laying down a rigid formula as it will be open to the trial courts to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant. Supreme Court in similar facts in Sainaba v. State of Kerala [(2024) 13 SCC 382 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1784] has released the vehicle

36. In the present case, this Court finds that after conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Karbi Anglong. In the said charge-sheet, neither the owner of the vehicle nor the driver has been arrayed as an accused. Only a third-party occupant has been arrayed as an accused. The police after investigation has not found that the appellant i.e. the owner of the vehicle, has allowed his vehicle to transport contraband drugs/substances with his knowledge or connivance or that he or his agent had not taken all reasonable precautions against such use. Consequently, the conveyance is entitled to be released on superdari.

37. In fact, the Supreme Court in similar facts in Sainaba v. State of Kerala [2024) 13 SCC 382 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1784] , has held as under : (SCC paras 6-9) “6. The appellant has urged inter alia that as per Section 36-C read with Section 51 of the NDPS Act, Criminal Procedure Code would be applicable for proceedings by a Special Court under NDPS Act and Section 451 has an inbuilt provision to impose any specific condition on the appellant while releasing the vehicle. The appellant is undoubtedly the registered owner of the vehicle but had not participated in the offence as alleged by the prosecution nor had knowledge of the alleged transaction.

7. The learned counsel seeks to rely on the judgment of this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1943] opining that it is no use to 6 CRLR No. 1048 of 2025 keep such seized vehicles at police station for a long period and it is open to the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking a bond and a guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time.

8. On hearing the learned counsel for parties and in the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the legal provisions referred aforesaid, we are of the view that this is an appropriate case for release of the vehicle on terms and conditions to be determined by the Special Court.

9. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving parties to bear their own costs.” If the vehicle in the present case is kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose

38. This Court is also of the view that if the vehicle in the present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This Court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce.

39. On the contrary, if the vehicle in question is released, it would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able to earn his livelihood), to the bank/financier (who would be repaid the loan disbursed by it) and to the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be available for transportation of goods) Conclusion

40. Consequently, the present criminal appeal is allowed with directions to the trial court to release the vehicle in question in the interim on superdari after preparing a video and still photographs of the vehicle and after obtaining all information/documents necessary for identification of the vehicle, which shall be authenticated by the investigating officer, owner of the vehicle and accused by signing the same. Further, the appellant shall not sell or part with the ownership of the vehicle till conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an undertaking to the trial court that he shall surrender the vehicle within one week of being so directed and/or pay the value of the vehicle (determined according to income tax law on the date of its release), if so ultimately directed by the Court."

11. From a conjoint perusal of the order impugned dated 11.08.2025 and the above referred paras of the judgment passed in the case of Bishwajit Dey (Supra), this Court finds that while rejecting the prayer to release the vehicle in issue the trial Court ought to have considered the following aspect, which have not been considered in its true spirit. (a) whether the owner is an accused. (b) whether reverse burden of proof has been discharged by the owner. In other words, whether owner has proved that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner's knowledge or connivance and that he has taken all reasonable precautions against such use of seized vehicle by the accused person. (c) Effect of expression 'May' used with regard to second category of cases in para 34 of the judgment referred above read with para 7 CRLR No. 1048 of 2025 35 of the same, which says "This Court clarifies that the aforesaid discussion should not be taken as laying down a rigid formula as it will be open to the trial courts to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant."

12. For the aforesaid, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.08.2025 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court to pass afresh order on the issue of release of vehicle of the revisionist expeditiously.

13. Liberty is also given to the revisionist to move fresh application on the subject. September 23, 2025 Mohit Singh/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench