MP High Court: Vehicle Seized In NDPS Case Can't Be Denied Release Without Hearing On Merits

Madhya Pradesh High Court's Gwalior bench has set aside a trial court order refusing to release a car seized in a narcotics case, holding that the application was rejected outright without being examined on merits.

Justice Pushpendra Yadav, hearing a criminal revision filed by Lokendra alias Golu, ruled that the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Guna, must take a fresh decision on the plea for release of the vehicle on supurdginama, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assam.

The case arises from an FIR registered on December 12, 2025 at Police Station Mragwas in Guna district, under Sections 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. According to the prosecution, the petitioner, along with co-accused persons, was found transporting 1.608 kilograms of opium in a white-coloured Hyundai Creta on December 11, 2025. The petitioner was both the person driving the vehicle at the time and its registered owner, and the car was seized following the recovery.

Lokendra approached the trial court under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 457 of CrPC), seeking interim release of the vehicle on supurdginama. The Special Judge rejected the plea on January 31, 2026, prompting him to move the High Court in revision under Sections 438/442 of the BNSS (Sections 397/401 of CrPC).

Advocates Siddharth Sijoria and Sakshi Basnet, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the trial court had erred in relying on a Rajasthan High Court order in Khurshid vs. State of Rajasthan, without factoring in the Supreme Court's later clarification in Bishwajit Dey. They pointed out that the Rajasthan order was itself founded on Bishwajit Dey, but had overlooked a crucial qualification recorded by the Apex Court. Counsel also placed on record an order dated January 5, 2026, in MJCR No. 9 of 2026, where the same trial court had released a vehicle on similar facts, arguing there was no absolute bar against such release.

Public Prosecutor Atul Sharma, appearing for the State, opposed the plea and supported the trial court's order rejecting release.

Examining the Bishwajit Dey judgment, the High Court noted that the Supreme Court had identified four scenarios in which contraband may be recovered from a vehicle, turning on whether the owner or his agent was in possession of the drugs, whether the vehicle was stolen, or whether recovery was from an unconnected third-party occupant. The Apex Court held that in the first two scenarios, the vehicle may not be released on supurdginama until the accused-owner discharges the reverse burden of proof, but in the other two, release should normally follow, subject to a bond.

The High Court, however, placed particular emphasis on paragraph 35 of the Bishwajit Dey judgment, in which the Supreme Court cautioned that its discussion "should not be taken as laying down a rigid formula" and that trial courts remained free "to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant."

The Court found that the trial court had rejected the application "out-rightly without considering the same on merits," especially when a similarly-placed application had earlier been allowed by the same court in a comparable case.

"Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey (Supra), especially the clarification contained in paragraph 35 of the said judgment, this Court is of the view that the matter deserves to be reconsidered by the learned trial Court," the order stated.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the January 31, 2026 order and remanded the matter to the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Guna, directing a fresh decision on the vehicle release application after considering the facts of the case and the law laid down in Bishwajit Dey. The revision was disposed of with these directions.

Case Title: Lokendra alias Golu vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: September 16, 2026

Bench: Justice Pushpendra Yadav