Interim release of seized vehicles under the NDPS Act is permissible where ownership knowledge is not established, subject to safeguards.

In the absence of an express bar in the NDPS Act, a seized conveyance may be released in interim custody under the CrPC through the trial court's discretionary powers under Sections 451 and 457. That discretion depends on the facts of each case and should not be denied as a rule where the owner is not shown to have knowledge, connivance, or failure to take reasonable precautions. Where the vehicle is not needed for evidentiary purposes and continued police custody would serve no useful purpose, release on superdari may be ordered subject to safeguards such as documentation, photographs, and restrictions on transfer.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in the absence of an express bar in the NDPS Act, a seized conveyance can be released in interim custody pending trial. (ii) Whether the appellant's vehicle, in the facts of the case, ought to be released on superdari.

Issue (i): Whether, in the absence of an express bar in the NDPS Act, a seized conveyance can be released in interim custody pending trial.

Analysis: The NDPS Act does not contain any specific prohibition against interim release of a seized conveyance during the pendency of the criminal case. In the absence of such a bar, and having regard to the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure under the NDPS framework, the general powers under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remain available. The power to release a seized vehicle is therefore discretionary and must be exercised on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court also noted that a construction preventing interim release in every case would produce an irrational result, particularly where the vehicle is not owned or used with the knowledge of the owner.

Conclusion: Yes. Interim release of a seized conveyance is not barred as a matter of law under the NDPS Act and may be ordered by the trial court in an appropriate case.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's vehicle, in the facts of the case, ought to be released on superdari.

Analysis: The charge-sheet did not array the appellant-owner or the driver as accused, and the contraband was found with a third-party occupant. The investigation did not establish that the vehicle was used with the owner's knowledge or connivance, or that the owner or his agent failed to take reasonable precautions. Keeping the vehicle in police custody till the end of trial would serve no useful purpose and would expose it to deterioration. Conditions such as preparation of video footage and still photographs, authentication of identification material, and restrictions on transfer were found sufficient to safeguard the prosecution case.

Conclusion: Yes. The vehicle was directed to be released in interim custody on superdari subject to conditions.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeds and the seized vehicle is to be returned in interim custody with protective conditions, leaving the trial on the NDPS offence otherwise unaffected.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory bar, a seized conveyance under the NDPS Act may be released in interim custody under the CrPC, and where the owner is not shown to have knowledge or connivance in the offence, the vehicle should ordinarily be released on suitable safeguards.

---