High Court emphasizes application of Supreme Court's nuanced approach in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam for release of vehicle seized under NDPS Act, remanding case for fresh decision on merits.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench), presided by Justice Pushpendra Yadav, on September 16, 2026, quashed the trial court's outright rejection of an application for release of a vehicle seized in a narcotics case, directing the lower court to reconsider the matter in light of the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (2025).
The case arose from an FIR registered on December 12, 2025, at Police Station Mragwas, District Guna, where the petitioner, Lokendra alias Golu, was apprehended transporting 1.608 kilograms of opium in a white Hyundai Creta bearing registration MP-14ZH-3584. The vehicle was seized as part of the investigation under Sections 8 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The petitioner, who was also the owner and driver of the vehicle at the time of seizure, filed an application under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking release of the vehicle on "Supurdginama" (a form of bail or custody bond for property).
The trial court, relying on a Rajasthan High Court decision in Khurshid v. State of Rajasthan (2025), summarily rejected the application without delving into the merits or considering the binding Supreme Court judgment in Bishwajit Dey. The petitioner challenged this order through a criminal revision petition under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS.
Justice Yadav highlighted the Supreme Court's analysis in Bishwajit Dey, which categorizes seizure scenarios into four broad types:
1. Contraband found with the vehicle owner.
2. Contraband found with the owner's agent (driver or cleaner).
3. Contraband found in a stolen vehicle without owner's knowledge.
4. Contraband found with a third-party occupant without owner's involvement.
The Supreme Court emphasized that in the first two scenarios, the vehicle may not be released on Supurdginama until the accused discharges the reverse burden of proof. However, in the latter two scenarios, where the owner is not implicated, the vehicle should normally be released on Supurdginama, subject to a bond. Crucially, the Supreme Court clarified that this framework is not rigid and trial courts must apply their discretion based on the facts of each case.
The High Court found that the trial court failed to apply this nuanced approach and instead rejected the application outrightly. The High Court also noted a contrasting order by the same trial court in a similar case where the vehicle was released, indicating inconsistency in applying the law.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's order dated January 31, 2026, and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision. The trial court was directed to consider the application on its merits, keeping in view the facts, circumstances, and the Supreme Court's guidance.
This judgment reiterates the importance of individualized judicial assessment in cases involving seizure of vehicles under the NDPS Act and related statutes, ensuring that procedural safeguards and legal principles are meticulously followed rather than applying a blanket approach. It also underscores the growing significance of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in shaping contemporary criminal procedural law in India.
Bottom Line:
Release of vehicle on Supurdginama under Section 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Trial Court cannot outrightly reject application without considering merits and applicable law, including judicial precedents.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 8, 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Sections 438, 442, 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Lokendra Alias Golu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (MP)(Gwalior) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2981976
