Mere Non-Registration Of Vehicle Can't Deny Interim Custody To Owner Not Accused In NDPS Case: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that mere non-registration of a vehicle cannot be a ground to deny interim custody to its owner if he is not an accused in the concerned NDPS case.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ordered release of an unregistered vehicle seized by the police in an NDPS case, subject to the condition that the owner gets it registered within 30 days and does not ply it on public roads until such registration.

The Court was hearing a petition challenging the order of the trial court that rejected petitioner's application seeking release of his car, which was seized by the police in an NDPS case.

The application was rejected by the trial court on the technical ground that the petitioner was not the registered owner of the vehicle.

It was contended by the petitioner that he was not an accused in the concerned NDPS case and had no concern with the alleged incident. If the vehicle was not released, it would deteriorate and its value would depreciate.

This was opposed by the state on the ground that even though the vehicle was purchased by the petitioner, the same was not registered with the Transport Authority. Hence, it could not be released in his favour.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no owner or driver should operate an unregistered motor vehicle in any public place.

“Vehicle registration is the legal process through which a vehicle is formally recorded in the government's database/records. It gives the vehicle a unique registration number and it links the name and address of the vehicle owner. This process ensures that the vehicle meet all road safety, tax and environment norms before it is legally allowed to be used on public roads.”

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, the Court noted that where a vehicle is stolen and used for transporting contraband, or where contraband is recovered from a third-party occupant without any allegation that it was stored or transported with the owner's knowledge or connivance, the owner is ordinarily entitled to interim custody, provided he is not arrayed as an accused.

Applying the above principles, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the third and fourth scenarios identified by the Supreme Court, as he had neither been charge-sheeted nor found to be an accused in the case. Consequently, he was entitled to interim custody of the vehicle.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the trial court's order and directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner on interim custody, subject to conditions.

Title: Manish Kumar v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 306

Click Here To Read/Download Order