CRL RC/2008/2026 of Mukesh Vs The State Rep by the Inspector of Police on 29 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

Crl.R.C.2153 of 2026 has been filed challenging the order passed by the XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai directing the disposal of the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN 13 AB 3116 seized during the course of investigation in Crime No.192 of 2026. CRL.R.C.No.2008 of 2026 has been filed challenging the dismissal of the petitioner’s prayer seeking interim custody of the aforesaid vehicle.

2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.192 of 2026 registered for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985 for possession of 7.770 kgs of ganja in the aforesaid vehicle. The respondent is yet to file a final report in the aforesaid case. Pending investigation, the learned Magistrate had directed the disposal of the vehicle by the Drugs Disposal Committee in Crl.M.P.No.7860 of 2026 which is impugned in Crl.R.C.No.2153 of 2026.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Magistrate ought not have directed the disposal of the vehicle pending investigation by the respondent and that even if the respondent filed a positive report against the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to establish in the trial that the vehicle was not used for the commission of the alleged offence against the petitioner. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs State of Assam reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241 and the subsequent judgment in R.Manimaran Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 1739 in support of her submissions. The learned counsel further submitted that since the vehicle is lying idle and the petitioner is the owner, he would be entitled to interim custody of the vehicle pending trial before the Court.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is the accused, who was found in possession of 7.770 kgs of ganja in the vehicle which was seized during the course of the investigation and would fairly submit that no confiscation proceedings has been initiated so far.

5. The order impugned in CRL.RC.No.2153 of 2026 as stated above is the order of the learned Magistrate directing the destruction of the vehicle in terms of Rule 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules 2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey Vs State of Assam reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241 has held as follows:- “25. Upon a reading of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view that the seized vehicles can be confiscated by the trial court only on conclusion of the trial when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. Further, even where the Court is of the view that the vehicle is liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity of hearing to the person who may claim any right to the seized vehicle before passing an order of confiscation. However, the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner’s knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the seized vehicle by the accused person”

6. In R.Manimaran Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 1739, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the said proposition aforesaid view and held that the vehicle can be confiscated only after the conclusion of the trial.

7. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing disposal of the vehicle pending investigation cannot be sustained and hence, it is set aside. Accordingly, Crl.RC.No.2153 of 2026 is allowed.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. In Bishwajit Dey case cited supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that there is no bar for handing over interim custody of the vehicle to the owner even if he is an accused of commission of offences under NDPS Act. The vehicle is lying idle at the police station since the date of seizure namely from 26.05.2026. The value of the vehicle would depreciate if it remains at the police station. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the order impugned in Crl.RC.No.2008 of 2026 and direct the handing over of interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner, on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Special Judge under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai;

(ii) The petitioner shall produce the original RC Book along with a self-attested Photostat copy of the RC Book of the vehicle and other relevant records to prove his ownership. The learned Principal Special Judge under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai, shall peruse the RC book and other records, retain a xerox copy of the same and return the original RC book to the petitioner;

(iii) The petitioner shall not alter or alienate the vehicle in any manner;

(iv) The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that he will produce the vehicle as and when required by the respondent and by the Court below.

(v) The return of property would be subject to the result of the confiscation proceedings, if any.

9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a phone has been seized from the petitioner. It is needless to say that if any other property has been seized from the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to seek return of the said property before the learned Magistrate.

10. In the result, both the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NR/NM To The Inspector of Police K-6, T.P.Chathram Police Station, Kilpauk,Chennai – 600 010.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. NR CRL RC Nos. 2008 and 2153 of 2026 and and CRL MP No.17976 of 2026 29-09-2026