Lokendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026
There is no rigid formula governing interim release of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act.
Judgement Details
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date of Decision
16 September 2026
Judges
Justice Pushpendra Yadav
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
An FIR was registered on 12.12.2025 under Sections 8 and 18 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
-
According to the prosecution, on 11.12.2025, the petitioner and a co-accused were allegedly found transporting 1.608 kg of opium.
-
The alleged contraband was being transported in a white-coloured Creta car.
-
The vehicle was seized by the police.
-
The petitioner was stated to be the owner of the vehicle and was also an accused in the case.
-
The petitioner subsequently applied for release of the seized vehicle on Supurdginama under Section 503 BNSS.
-
The Special Judge under the NDPS Act rejected the application without deciding the request on its merits.
-
The petitioner challenged the rejection before the Madhya Pradesh High Court through a criminal revision.
-
The petitioner argued that the Trial Court had relied upon Khurshid v. State of Rajasthan, concerning interim custody of a vehicle seized in an NDPS case where the registered owner was also an accused.
-
The petitioner contended that the Trial Court had failed to consider the principles discussed in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam.
-
In Bishwajit Dey, the Supreme Court had clarified that the principles concerning release of seized vehicles should not be treated as a rigid formula.
-
The petitioner argued that the application for interim release should therefore be decided after considering the facts and circumstances of the individual case.
-
The High Court also noted that, in a similar factual situation, another Trial Court had permitted release of the vehicle.
Issues
-
Whether there is a rigid formula governing applications for interim release of vehicles seized in connection with an NDPS case?
-
Whether the Trial Court was required to consider the application for release of the seized vehicle on merits?
-
Whether the ownership of the vehicle and the petitioner's status as an accused are sufficient, by themselves, to reject an application for interim custody?
-
Whether the principles stated in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam require the Trial Court to consider the facts and circumstances of each individual case?
-
Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application outrightly without undertaking a merits-based consideration?
Judgement
-
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the criminal revision.
-
The Court held that there is no rigid formula for deciding applications seeking interim release of vehicles seized in NDPS cases.
-
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court's observations in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam.
-
The Supreme Court had clarified that the principles discussed in that case should not be treated as a rigid formula and that Trial Courts may take a different view depending upon the facts.
-
The High Court found that the Special Judge had rejected the application outrightly without considering the petitioner's request on its merits.
-
The Court held that the Trial Court was required to examine the application by considering the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
-
The High Court therefore set aside the impugned order passed by the Special Judge.
-
The matter was remanded to the Trial Court.
-
The Trial Court was directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for release of the vehicle on Supurdginama in accordance with law.
-
The High Court did not itself direct release of the vehicle, leaving the substantive decision to the Trial Court after proper consideration.
Held
-
An application for interim custody must be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case.
-
The Trial Court cannot reject such an application outright without considering its merits.
-
The principles laid down in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam are not to be applied mechanically.
-
The Trial Court may reach a different conclusion depending upon the facts of the individual case.
-
The order rejecting the petitioner's application was therefore set aside.
-
The matter was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh decision on merits.
Analysis
-
No rigid formula: The central principle is that applications for interim custody of seized vehicles cannot be decided through an inflexible rule applicable to every NDPS case.
-
Case-specific assessment: The Trial Court must consider the circumstances surrounding the seizure, ownership, accused's involvement and other relevant factors before deciding the application.
-
Bishwajit Dey: The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's clarification that the principles governing interim release should not be treated as an automatic formula.
-
Merits of application: The Special Judge's principal error was that the application was rejected outright rather than being examined on its substantive merits.
-
Ownership and accused status: The fact that the petitioner was both the registered owner and an accused could be relevant, but the High Court did not treat that circumstance as an automatic statutory bar to consideration of interim custody.
-
Judicial discretion: The judgment preserves the Trial Court's discretion to grant or refuse interim custody after examining the particular facts.
-
Limited scope of remand: The High Court did not itself determine whether the vehicle should ultimately be released. It required the competent Trial Court to reconsider the application according to law.
-
Practical significance: The ruling indicates that applications for release of vehicles seized in NDPS proceedings should receive a reasoned, fact-specific determination, rather than being rejected solely by applying a general proposition.