The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has set aside an order refusing interim release of a vehicle seized in an NDPS case and directed the trial court to reconsider the application in accordance with the facts and applicable law.
Justice Pushpendra Yadav passed the order on September 16, 2026, in Criminal Revision No. 742 of 2026. The vehicle had been seized after the prosecution alleged that 1.608 kilograms of opium was being transported in it.
The case arose from Crime No. 182/2025 registered at Police Station Mragwas in Guna district under Sections 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
According to the prosecution case, 1.608 kilograms of opium was allegedly being transported in a white-coloured Creta car bearing registration number MP-14ZH-3584 on December 11, 2025. Lokendra alias Golu was driving the vehicle when it was seized and was also its owner.
He subsequently moved an application under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking release of the vehicle on Supurdginama, meaning interim custody subject to conditions. The Special Judge (NDPS Act), Guna, rejected the application on January 31, 2026.
The petitioner argued that the trial court had relied upon a Rajasthan High Court order without properly considering the Supreme Court's ruling in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241.
The petitioner argued that there was no absolute bar on releasing the vehicle on Supurdginama and that the application should be considered on the facts of the case. The petitioner also pointed out that a vehicle had been released by the same trial court in another case involving similar facts.
The High Court examined the Supreme Court's decision, particularly paragraphs 33 to 35 of Bishwajit Dey. The Supreme Court had identified different situations involving seizure of vehicles and clarified that the approach depends upon the facts of each case.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court specifically noted the Supreme Court's clarification that its discussion was not intended to create a rigid formula. The trial court therefore remained entitled to take a different view where the circumstances of a particular case justified it.
The High Court observed that the trial court had rejected the petitioner's application outright without examining the request on its merits. It also took note of the order placed before it showing that a vehicle had been released in a similar matter.
The High Court held that the matter required reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's ruling, especially the clarification concerning the non-rigid nature of the framework.
Accordingly, Justice Pushpendra Yadav set aside the January 31, 2026 order of the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Guna, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision on the application for release of the vehicle on Supurdginama.
The trial court was directed to consider the facts, circumstances and applicable law, including the Supreme Court's decision in Bishwajit Dey. The criminal revision was disposed of with these directions.
Case Title: Lokendra Alias Golu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 742 of 2026
