NDPS Act | Supreme Court's Law On Release Of Seized Vehicles Not A Rigid Formula, Trial Court Must Consider Facts: MP High Court

Update: 2026-09-20 05:30 GMT

Click the Play button to listen to article

story

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that there is no rigid formula for deciding applications seeking interim release of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act, and that Trial Courts must consider the facts and circumstances of each case while deciding such applications. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 375]Justice Pushpendra Yadav made the observation while setting aside the Trial Court's order which...

Your free access to Live Law has expired

Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Subscribe Now

Justice Pushpendra Yadav made the observation while setting aside the Trial Court's order which had "rejected outrightly" an application seeking release of a vehicle allegedly used to transport 1.608 kg of opium, without considering the plea on merits.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, particularly its clarification that the principles laid down therein should not be treated as a rigid formula and that Trial Courts may take a different view depending on the facts of the case.

The bench of Justice Pushpendra Yadav emphasized,

"In paragraph 35, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that the aforesaid discussion should not be taken as laying down a rigid formula and that it will be open to the trial Courts to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that there is no rigid formula and it is open to the trial Court to take a decision considering the facts of the case".

The bench further noted:

"In the present case, the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner out-rightly without considering the same on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record a copy of the order passed by the trial Court wherein in similar set of facts, the application for release of the vehicle was allowed".

A revision was filed against the order of the Special Judge (NDPS Act) wherein the application of the petitioner for release of the vehicle on Supurdginama was rejected.

Per the facts of the case, on December 12, 2025, an FIR was registered under Sections 8 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Per the prosecution, on December 11, 2025, the petitioner, along with the co-accused, was found transporting 1.608 kg of opium in a white-coloured Creta car. The said vehicle was seized, along with the driver and the owner (petitioner).

The petitioner subsequently filed an application under Section 503 BNSS, which lays down the procedure for seizure by police officials, which was dismissed by the Special Judge.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court relied on the Rajasthan High Court case of Khurshid Vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein it was held that the registered owner of a vehicle, seized in relation to an NDPS case, is not entitled to get interim custody of the vehicle merely on the grounds of ownership if he/she himself/herself is one of the accused in the case.

However, it failed to take into consideration the Judgement of the Trial Court in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, wherein it was held that the NDPS Act doesn't prohibit the interim release of vehicles which are seized for allegedly transporting contraband. The counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no bar and therefore the application ought to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court to take a fresh decision on the petitioner's application for release of the vehicle on Supurdginama.