A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This judgment in Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam, [2025] 1 S.C.R. 281 : 2025 INSC 32, addresses whether a conveyance seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act) can be released on superdari (interim custody) during pendency of trial. The vehicle in question a commercial truck was seized after two soap-box parcels containing heroin (24.8 gms) were found concealed in tarpaulin; the occupier who had the contraband was arraigned, whereas the registered owner and driver were not made accused in the charge-sheet.

The State urged that the NDPS Act is a self-contained code and that interim release of conveyances would undermine confiscation policy and risk re-use. The Court analysed Sections 51, 52A, 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act alongside Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., earlier precedents and the principle against absurd constructions. Distinguishing four factual scenarios of seizure (owner in possession; agent in possession; vehicle stolen; third-party occupant), the Court held there is no express bar in the NDPS Act to interim release of a seized vehicle.

Where owner/agent is not charged (third-party occupant or stolen vehicle scenario), trial court may, in its discretion, release the conveyance on superdari subject to safeguards (videography, inventories, identification documents, restriction on transfer and undertaking / bond). The Court emphasised that retention in open police custody risks depreciation, and that conditional release balances evidentiary needs with protection of bona fide owners. The judgment directs the Special Court to release the truck on superdari with specified conditions.

Keywords: Interim release of conveyances; superdari; NDPS Act; Section 51; Section 60(3); Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C.; confiscation; third-party occupant.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal arises from refusal by the trial/High Court to release a seized truck that had concealed contraband. The owner, appellant Bishwajit Dey, purchased the truck on EMI and claimed it to be his sole livelihood source. Police, during a naka check, discovered heroin concealed in tarpaulin; the occupant in whose possession the contraband was found was arrested and charged under s.21(b) NDPS; neither owner nor driver were made accused in the charge-sheet. The appellant sought release under ss.451/457 Cr.P.C. (custody/return of seized property), contending prolonged police custody would cause depreciation and prevent his earning.

The State resisted, relying on the NDPS Act as a special, exhaustive code where conveyances are liable to confiscation under s.60(3) and pointing to legislative measures (s.52A, s.63, s.36C) and judicial precedents refusing interim release in NDPS matters. The Supreme Court undertook a principled analysis: whether the NDPS Act implicitly or explicitly bars interim return of conveyances and if not, the circumstances and safeguards for exercising Cr.P.C. powers to release property pending trial.

The Court adopted a fact-sensitive approach, framed four archetypal seizure scenarios and held that where owner/agent are not charged (third-party occupant/stolen vehicle), release on superdari is normally appropriate subject to strict conditions to preserve evidence and prevent misuse. The decision seeks to harmonise deterrence and property rights while prescribing concrete procedural safeguards.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 10 April 2023 a truck (Reg. No. AS-01-NC-4355) travelling from Dimapur was stopped at a naka inspection. Police searched the vehicle after s.50 notice and independent witnesses being present. Two identical soap boxes wrapped in black polythene and concealed under tarpaulin, kept at the hood, tested positive in a field test and later forensic analysis confirmed 24.8 grams of heroin.

The person found in possession, Md. Dimpul Ali, was arrested. The driver and helper were cited as witnesses. The investigating officer prepared seizure inventories and forwarded samples to the forensic laboratory. On 1 August 2023 a charge-sheet under s.21(b) NDPS was filed in the Special NDPS Court naming Md. Dimpul Ali; neither the registered owner nor the driver were charged. The owner, who financed the vehicle through EMIs and relied on it for livelihood, applied for interim release under ss.451/457 Cr.P.C.; the trial court rejected the application and the High Court dismissed the writ, prompting this appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the NDPS Act contains any specific bar to interim release of a seized conveyance pending trial such that ss.451/457 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked?

ii. In what factual circumstances should a seized vehicle be released on superdari during an NDPS trial?

iii. What procedural safeguards should be mandated when release on superdari is permitted to protect prosecution’s evidentiary interests and prevent misuse?

iv. Whether prejudice to a bona fide owner (depreciation, livelihood loss) can justify interim release despite confiscation provisions in s.60?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The owner asserted he had no knowledge or connivance in transporting narcotics. The driver and helper were not implicated and are witnesses. The charge-sheet names only the occupier who had the contraband. Prolonged custody of the vehicle in police malkhana, exposed to elements, will reduce its value and deprive the owner of livelihood. Reliance placed on ss.451/457 Cr.P.C. and precedents such as Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat indicating that courts can grant interim custody subject to bond/guarantee and conditions to secure return for trial needs.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State emphasised the NDPS Act as a special enactment and cautioned that interim return would subvert the Act’s deterrent purpose and risk reuse of conveyance for trafficking. It relied on s.60(3) (liability of conveyances to confiscation) and executive notifications under s.52A, as well as judicial decisions refusing interim release. The State argued that the vehicle is material evidence and may be required during trial for inspection/demonstration, and that release increases risk of re-offending or concealment/substitution of evidence.

---

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Court reasoned from first principles. It held the NDPS Act allows application of Cr.P.C. provisions insofar as not inconsistent (see s.51), and nothing in the Act expressly prohibits interim release of conveyances. The Court adopted a pragmatic, purposive construction and invoked the canon against absurdity: to accept the State’s position would permit seizure of any private plane, ship or bus indefinitely even where owners were innocent an outcome Parliament could not have intended. The Court analysed s.60(3) which makes conveyances liable to confiscation unless owner proves non-knowledge and reasonable precautions; but confiscation is a final order after hearing. The Court therefore allowed invocation of ss.451/457 Cr.P.C. subject to judicial discretion.

The Court formulated four broad scenarios:

(1) owner in possession (owner accused);

(2) agent/employee in possession (owner/agent accused);

(3) stolen vehicle used by accused;

(4) contraband possessed by third-party occupant without allegation against owner.

It held that in the first two scenarios the burden and risk justifies withholding superdari until reverse onus discharged; in the latter two scenarios, where charge-sheet does not accuse owner/agent, the vehicle should normally be released on superdari upon furnishing bonds/undertakings and subject to safeguards.

Mandatory safeguards articulated included preparation of videography and still photographs, authenticated inventory signed by Investigating Officer, owner and accused, prohibition on sale/transfer during pendency, identification documents and an undertaking to surrender vehicle when required or pay assessed value if confiscated. The trial court retains discretion to vary conditions if facts demand.

The Court further noted risk of deterioration in police custody and public interest in enabling owner to earn livelihood, stressing proportionality between enforcement interest and protection of property rights. Applying the principles to facts, the Court found appellant’s vehicle fell in the fourth scenario: owner and driver not charged, contraband recovered from third-party occupant. Consequently, release on superdari with prescribed safeguards was directed. The appeal was allowed and directions issued to the trial court to implement conditions.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive ratio is:

(i) NDPS Act does not contain an express bar to interim return of conveyances;

(ii) s.51 allows Cr.P.C. powers unless inconsistent;

(iii) confiscation under s.60 is a final remedy and requires hearing;

(iv) where owner/agent are not charged (third-party/stolen vehicle), balance of interests ordinarily favours conditional interim release on superdari with strict safeguards to preserve evidence and prevent misuse. The judicial preference against absurd construction undergirds this reading.

b. OBITER DICTA 

Observations include practical comments on storage conditions of vehicles in police custody and risk of depreciation; comparative hypotheticals (private planes/ships) highlighting absurd consequences of the State’s rigid view; and encouragement to trial courts to exercise discretion factually and to adopt videography/inventory practices and restrictions on alienation.

c. GUIDELINES 

The Court enumerated procedural safeguards when releasing a seized conveyance:

1. Prepare videography and still photographs of the vehicle.

2. Prepare and authenticate inventory and all identifying documents; have Investigating Officer, owner and accused sign.

3. Impose prohibition on sale/transfer/alienation until final adjudication.

4. Require undertaking/bond that owner will produce vehicle when directed or pay value (to be fixed per Income-Tax norms on date of release) if confiscated.

5. Trial courts retain discretion to refuse release in first two scenarios (owner/agent accused) or where facts warrant.

6. Ensure measures to prevent substitution or tampering and permit inspection by prosecution as required.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment strikes a considered balance between the NDPS Act’s object of deterrence and protection of innocent owners’ proprietary and livelihood interests. By refusing a blanket exclusion of ss.451/457 Cr.P.C., the Court preserved judicial discretion and due process while prescribing practicable safeguards to secure evidence and forestall misuse. The four-scenario framework offers a usable heuristic for trial courts: focus on who is charged, nature of possession and the risk profile.

The insistence on videography, authenticated inventories and prohibition on transfer operationalises evidential protection and mitigates concerns from authorities and legislature. Practically, this judgment will reduce unjustified immobilisation of vehicles and attendant collateral hardships while preserving the NDPS Act’s confiscatory potential through binding undertakings and enforceable bonds. Trial courts must apply the guidelines strictly and tailor conditions to facts; prosecutors should ensure inventories, sampling and chain-of-custody robustly recorded to minimize contestation. The ruling is jurisprudentially sound, aligning statutory construction with proportionality and avoiding results Parliament could not have intended.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, [2025] 1 S.C.R. 281 : 2025 INSC 32.

2. Sainaba v. State of Kerala and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1784.

3. Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283.

4. Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Another, (2008) 16 SCC 417.

5. Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), (2020) 10 SCC 120.

6. Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, (1999) 5 SCC 670.

7. Union of India v. Dinesh Kumar Verma, (2005) 9 SCC 330.

8. General Insurance Council & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 6 SCC 768.

9. In Re: Moumita Saha, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1094.

10. Shajahan v. Inspector of Excise and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 3685.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — ss.36C, 51, 52A, 60, 63.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss.451, 457, 50 (search notice provisions referenced in facts).