Rajasthan HC Orders Release of NDPS-Seized Vehicle to Non-Accused Owner, Applying Supreme Court's Four-Scenario Framework
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand quashed a Special Court's rejection of a supurdagi application, holding that a vehicle owner not charge-sheeted in an NDPS case is entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicle, subject to bond and registration conditions.
The Rajasthan High Court's Bench at Jaipur has set aside an order by which the Court of Special Judge (NDPS Cases) and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanimandi, District Jhalawar had refused to release a seized vehicle to its owner, Manish Kumar, under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting singly, applied the Supreme Court's decision in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241, which identifies four scenarios for dealing with supurdagi applications involving vehicles seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Since Manish Kumar was neither an accused nor charge-sheeted in the underlying FIR, the High Court held that the Special Court had erred in rejecting his application purely on the ground that the vehicle bore only a temporary registration.
The Dispute Before the High Court
A Maruti Suzuki Swift ZXI BS VI — chassis number MBHCZCB3SPBB79688, engine number K12NP1372761 — was seized by the police in connection with FIR No. 96/2023, registered at Police Station Dug, District Jhalawar for offences under Sections 8, 18 and 29 of the NDPS Act. A charge-sheet was filed against certain co-accused persons, but Manish Kumar, who claims to be the original purchaser and owner of the vehicle, was not named as an accused in the charge-sheet. The Investigating Officer did not find any role or involvement on his part.
Manish Kumar approached the Special Court seeking release of the vehicle on supurdagi, arguing that it would deteriorate and lose value if it remained in police custody throughout the trial. The Special Court, by its order dated 19 November 2024, rejected the application. The stated reason was that, although Manish Kumar had purchased the vehicle on 5 April 2023 and received a temporary registration number RJ20 TC 0261, he had not obtained permanent registration from the District Transport Officer, Kota within the stipulated 30-day window. The Special Court treated the absence of formal registration as a bar to release.
Manish Kumar challenged that order before the High Court through S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8054/2024, represented by Mr. Ali Mohammed Khan. The State of Rajasthan was represented by Mr. S.S. Naruka, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Ms. Ritika Naruka and Mr. Jitendra Takar, along with Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor.
The Registration Complication
When the matter was last listed on 25 May 2026, the Court noted that the vehicle had not been permanently registered, which had weighed against its release at the Special Court stage. On directions issued by the High Court, the Additional Advocate General appearing for the Department of Transport confirmed the essential facts: Manish Kumar had purchased the vehicle on 5 April 2023 and been assigned temporary registration RJ20 TC 0261 on condition that permanent registration be obtained at the Office of the District Transport Officer, Kota within 30 days. That period had long expired without the owner obtaining permanent registration.
The Transport Department's counsel pointed out that the Motor Vehicles Act provides a procedure to deal with situations where a purchaser causes delay in registration, and sought appropriate directions from the Court. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which the High Court referred to, mandates that no owner or driver shall operate an unregistered motor vehicle in any public place. The vehicle's lack of permanent registration was therefore a live legal complication, separate from the NDPS proceedings.
The Bishwajit Dey Framework and Its Application
Justice Dhand drew on the Supreme Court's decision in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241, which frames four broad scenarios for handling supurdagi applications where a vehicle has been seized under the NDPS Act.
The first scenario is where the vehicle's owner is the person from whose possession the contraband was recovered. The second is where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the owner's agent, such as a driver or cleaner. In both these scenarios, the owner or agent is necessarily arrayed as an accused, and the Supreme Court held that the vehicle may not be released on supurdagi until the accused-owner discharges the reverse burden of proof under the NDPS Act.
The third scenario arises where the vehicle was stolen by the accused and the contraband is recovered from the stolen vehicle. The fourth is where contraband is seized from a third-party occupant — with or without consideration — and the police make no allegation that the contraband was stored or transported with the owner's knowledge or connivance. In these two scenarios, the owner is not arrayed as an accused.
For the third and fourth scenarios, the Supreme Court directed that “the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari” subject to the owner furnishing a bond to produce the vehicle when directed, or to pay its court-assessed value if confiscation is ultimately ordered.
Justice Dhand found that the petitioner's case squarely falls within the third and fourth scenarios. The charge-sheet was filed against co-accused persons; Manish Kumar was not named. The Investigating Officer found no role or involvement attributable to him. The sole basis for the Special Court's refusal was the absence of permanent vehicle registration — a technical ground that the High Court held cannot override an owner's entitlement to interim custody where the NDPS law itself does not bar release.
Conditions Imposed for Release
While allowing the petition and quashing the order of 19 November 2024, Justice Dhand imposed a detailed set of conditions to address both the NDPS proceedings and the pending registration issue.
On registration: the petitioner must present the vehicle at the Office of the District Transport Officer, Kota within 30 days from the date of the order for the purpose of obtaining permanent registration. Until registration is obtained, he is restrained from plying the vehicle on public roads. He may drive it to the DTO office for the purpose of registration, and may ply it thereafter only once it is formally registered. If he fails to obtain registration, he must not ply the vehicle on any road.
On the vehicle's condition and use: the petitioner must keep the vehicle intact and must not alter any identifying feature. He must furnish photographs showing the vehicle's number, colour and other particulars at the time of release. He must also give an undertaking that the vehicle will not be used for any illegal purpose, with personal liability if that condition is breached.
On trial requirements: the petitioner must produce the vehicle before the Trial Court whenever it requires the vehicle for identification or any other purpose connected with the trial. He must execute a Supurdaginama or indemnity bond and furnish two surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The High Court additionally directed the District Transport Officer, Kota to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law when considering the registration of the vehicle.
Outcome
The criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed by order dated 15 July 2026. The impugned order of 19 November 2024 passed by the Court of Special Judge (NDPS Cases) and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanimandi, District Jhalawar stands quashed and set aside. The vehicle — Maruti Suzuki Swift ZXI BS VI, chassis number MBHCZCB3SPBB79688, engine number K12NP1372761 — is directed to be released on supurdagi in favour of Manish Kumar subject to the six conditions enumerated above. The stay application and all other pending applications in the petition also stand disposed of.