In an important ruling on the interim release of vehicles seized in narcotics cases, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a vehicle allegedly used in an offence under the NDPS Act can be released to its registered owner during the pendency of the trial. The Court clarified that the possibility of future confiscation cannot, by itself, justify refusing interim custody of the vehicle.
Background of the Case
The criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge (NDPS Cases), Rajouri, which had refused to release an i20 car seized in connection with an FIR registered under various provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The registered owner argued that the vehicle had been lying unused at the police station for a prolonged period and was likely to deteriorate due to exposure to weather. It was also submitted that he was willing to furnish a superdari bond and comply with any conditions imposed by the Court.
The prosecution opposed the plea, contending that the vehicle was allegedly used for transporting narcotic substances and could eventually be confiscated under the NDPS Act. It also argued that the vehicle constituted material evidence in the criminal case.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
Justice M.A. Chowdhary examined the provisions of Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, along with Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act.
The Court observed that the NDPS Act does not prohibit the interim release of a seized vehicle during investigation or trial. It explained that confiscation under the Act is considered only after the conclusion of the trial, and even then, the owner must be given an opportunity to establish that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or consent.
Referring to earlier Supreme Court decisions, the Court noted:
“The mere fact that a vehicle used in carrying contraband articles is liable to confiscation... is no bar for giving the interim custody of the same to its registered owner before passing confiscation order.”
The bench further observed:
“If the Vehicle... is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose.”
The Court pointed out that vehicles kept in open police premises continue to lose value because of exposure to natural conditions, while photographs, videography and a proper inventory can adequately preserve evidence for trial.
Court's Decision
Allowing the criminal revision petition, the High Court set aside the trial court's order refusing interim custody of the vehicle.
The Court directed the trial court to release the vehicle to its registered owner on superdari after preparing authenticated videography, photographs and identification records.
It also directed that the owner must file an undertaking not to sell or transfer the vehicle during the trial and to produce it before the court whenever required or pay its value if ultimately directed.
Case Details
Case Title: Anjum Rafiq v. Union Territory of J&K & Another
Case Number: Crl R No. 89/2025
Judge: Justice M.A. Chowdhary
Decision Date: 06 July 2026
