‘No knowledge of offence’: Telangana High Court orders interim release of seized car in drug case

The petitioner stated that he had leased the vehicle to a company for business purposes, and he had no knowledge of its use in criminal activity. His request for release was previously rejected by the Drug Disposal Committee and the Prohibition and Excise department on the grounds that confiscation proceedings were pending.

Justice Lakshman’s ruling drew on several legal precedents to justify the interim release. He highlighted the Supreme Court’s stance in ‘Bishwajit Dey vs State of Assam’ case, wherein the top court stated that a seized vehicle can only be confiscated at the conclusion of a trial. The court further noted that confiscation is not applicable if the owner can prove a lack of knowledge or connivance and that all reasonable precautions were taken.

The judgment also referenced the principles from ‘Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat’ and ‘Union of India vs Mohanlal’ cases, which have established precedents for the interim custody of seized vehicles. By applying these principles, the court affirmed that the petitioner, as a non-accused owner, is entitled to possession while the investigation and confiscation process continue.

As a result, the Telangana High Court directed the Prohibition and Excise Department to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond for Rs 2,00,000 with one surety for a similar amount. The petitioner is also required to submit the original registration certificate and an undertaking that he will not sell or alter the vehicle and will produce it as and when required by the authorities.