‘Seize even plane, ship till trial is over?’: Bombay High Court orders release of bike in NDPS case

It added, “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.”

Sessions court order set aside

• The Bombay High Court quashed the sessions court’s order and directed that the motorcycle be released to the petitioner on execution of a Rs 50,000 bond.
• The court also imposed conditions restraining the petitioner from selling or misusing the vehicle and requiring him to produce it before the trial court as and when directed.
• The case arose after the petitioner’s nephew was allegedly found in possession of 1.828 grams of ganja, worth Rs 18,000, while using the motorcycle.

Supreme Court’s ‘absurdity’ test applied

• Central to the ruling was the Supreme Court’s 2025 judgment in Bishwajit Dey vs State of Assam, which cautioned against interpretations that produce unjust or absurd outcomes.
• The apex court had illustrated that accepting the state’s position would mean even a private plane, bus or ship would have to remain seized until trial concludes if an accused carried narcotics without the owner’s knowledge, an outcome the court termed irrational.
• Relying on this reasoning, the Bombay High Court held that criminal law must be applied to real-world facts and not in a vacuum.

Owner not accused: Key factor

• The court noted that the petitioner was not an accused in the case and there were no allegations of his knowledge or involvement.
• This placed the matter within the “fourth scenario” identified by the Supreme Court, where contraband is recovered from a third-party occupant without implicating the owner.
• In such cases, courts should ordinarily release the vehicle on interim custody, subject to safeguards, the Bombay High Court said.

No absolute bar under NDPS Act

The court clarified that there is no explicit prohibition under Section 51 of the NDPS Act against releasing seized vehicles during the pendency of trial.

Section 51 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, deals with the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to procedures under the NDPS Act. It states that the provisions of the CrPC apply to all warrants issued, and arrests, searches, and seizures made under the NDPS Act.

Instead, courts can exercise powers under sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC to grant interim custody depending on the facts of each case. Section 451 applies to property produced before a court during inquiry/trial, while Section 457 covers property seized but not yet produced before a magistrate, typically during investigation.

Both allow for interim release (supratnama) to the rightful owner to prevent decay or unnecessary space consumption, often following the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai ruling.

The Bombay High Court also reiterated that confiscation of a vehicle can only take place after conclusion of the trial and after allowing the owner to be heard.

Safeguards to preserve evidence

Addressing concerns that the vehicle may be required as evidence, the Bombay High Court directed authorities to prepare videography and still photographs of the motorcycle before its release.

These are to be authenticated by the investigating officer and relevant parties to ensure evidentiary value is preserved, said the court.

Practicality over prolonged seizure

The Bombay High Court emphasised that keeping vehicles idle in police custody for years often leads to deterioration without serving any investigative or judicial purpose.

By invoking the “private plane/ship/bus” analogy, the ruling underscores a shift towards balancing strict enforcement of narcotics law with fairness to property owners who are not accused, ensuring that legal processes do not produce disproportionate or impractical outcomes.