Narendra Through Poa Sanjay vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Gajendra Singh, J

This criminal revision under section 438 read with section 442 of the BNSS, 2023 is preferred being aggrieved by order dated 29.01.2026 in MJCR No.35/2026 by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, District- Mandsaur (MP) whereby application for release of vehicle seized bearing registration No.MP-04-CN-4879 in connection with crime No.66/2025 registered at Police Station-Narcotic Cell Indore for the offence punishable under sections 8/15, 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 has been rejected.

Challenging the impugned order this criminal revision has been preferred.

Revision petitioner Narendra is the registered owner of the vehicle Scorpio bearing registration No.MP-04-CN-4879 and he was apprehended on 02.12.2025 along with the contraband i.e. 53 kilograms of poppy straw and he is the accused in that case. Trial court has rejected the application relying on the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam (2025) 3 SCC 241.

In Bishwajit Dey (Supra) the Apex Court has laid down the legal position in paragraphs 29 and 30 as follows:-

"29. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized / recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner‟s knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused.

This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently,it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on supurdagi till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused-owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on supurdagi subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated."

In view of the above, the revision petitioner himself was apprehended along with the contraband. There is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.