Interim release of seized vessel in an NDPS case upheld, but security conditions were revised as disproportionate.

Courts may order interim release of a vessel seized in an NDPS case under the restorative powers in Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC, because the NDPS Act does not impose an absolute bar. Interim custody is lawful where safeguards ensure the property remains available for inquiry or trial. The trial court's direction to release the vessel was therefore upheld in principle, but the original security terms were partly excessive. The bank guarantee requirement was waived, the indemnity bond condition was modified, and the remaining safeguards were maintained to keep the conditions proportionate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the provisions governing interim release of seized property apply to a vessel seized in connection with an NDPS case, and whether the order directing interim release was illegal. (ii) Whether the conditions imposed for interim release were excessive and required modification.

Issue (i): Whether the provisions governing interim release of seized property apply to a vessel seized in connection with an NDPS case, and whether the order directing interim release was illegal.

Analysis: The seized vessel was the subject of proceedings for interim custody. The statutory scheme of Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers the court to pass appropriate orders for custody or delivery of seized property to the person entitled to possession, and Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 operates on the same restorative principle. The NDPS Act, 1985 does not create an absolute bar against interim release of a seized vehicle or vessel. The court relied on the settled position that such power may be exercised to prevent unnecessary hardship and deterioration of the property, while ensuring availability for inquiry or trial through suitable safeguards.

Conclusion: Interim release was permissible in law, and the trial court did not commit illegality in directing release of the vessel.

Issue (ii): Whether the conditions imposed for interim release were excessive and required modification.

Analysis: The conditions for furnishing a bank guarantee and an indemnity bond were examined against the facts and the nature of the property. The absence of a bank account in India, the lack of a certified valuation report, and the need for a realistic safeguard were taken into account. While some security was necessary to protect the interest of the prosecution and secure production of the vessel, the original financial conditions were found to be unduly harsh in part and therefore required calibration.

Conclusion: The bank guarantee condition was waived, the indemnity bond condition was modified, and the remaining conditions were maintained.

Final Conclusion: The order of interim release was sustained in principle, but the monetary safeguards attached to it were revised to make them proportionate to the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory bar, courts may invoke the general powers under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to order interim release of property seized in an NDPS case, but the release must be accompanied by proportionate conditions securing identification and production of the property during trial.

---