BISHWAJIT DEY versus THE STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 281 · Decided: 06-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KAROL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 281 : 2025 INSC 32
Bishwajit Dey 
v. 
The State of Assam
(Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2025)
07 January 2025
[Sanjay Karol and Manmohan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Interim release of conveyances during the pendency of the trial in 
NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) 
cases.
Headnotes†
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – 
Releasing of vehicle in the interim on superdari – A Vehicle 
was stopped at a checking point – The Police officer searched 
the Vehicle and found two identical soap boxes containing 
suspected heroin which was covered in black polythene, kept 
concealed inside the Tarpaulin and kept at the hood of the 
Vehicle – After a field test, the said suspected substance was 
confirmed to be 24.8 gms. of heroin – The vehicle in question 
was seized – The appellant herein has sought release of the 
vehicle:
Held: In the present case, this Court finds that after conclusion of 
investigation, a chargesheet has been filed in the Court of Special 
Judge, NDPS – In the said chargesheet, neither the owner of the 
Vehicle nor the driver has been arrayed as an accused – Only a 
third-party occupant has been arrayed as an accused – The police 
after investigation has not found that the appellant i.e. the owner 
of the vehicle, has allowed his vehicle to transport contraband 
drugs/ substances with his knowledge or connivance or that he or 
his agent had not taken all reasonable precautions against such 
use – Consequently, the conveyance is entitled to be released 
on superdari – If the Vehicle in the present case is allowed to be 
kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no 
purpose – This Court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police 
custody are stored in the open – Consequently, if the Vehicle is 
*Author
282
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the 
vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce – Therefore, the 
trial Court directed to release the Vehicle in question in the interim 
on superdari after preparing a video and still photographs of the 
vehicle and after obtaining all information/documents necessary 
for identification of the vehicle, which shall be authenticated by 
the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by 
signing the same. [Paras 32, 34, 36]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – 
s.51 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.451 and 457 – 
Seized vehicles – Power of Court to release the vehicle in 
interim – Whether there is any specific bar/restriction under 
the NDPS Act for release in interim of any seized vehicle:
Held: Upon a reading of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view 
that the seized vehicles can be confiscated by the trial court only on 
conclusion of the trial when the accused is convicted or acquitted 
or discharged – Further, even where the Court is of the view that 
the vehicle is liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity 
of hearing to the person who may claim any right to the seized 
vehicle before passing an order of confiscation – However, the 
seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized 
vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used by the accused person 
without the owner’s knowledge or connivance and that he had 
taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the seized 
vehicle by the accused person – In the absence of any specific 
bar under the NDPS Act and in view of Section 51 of NDPS Act, 
the Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 
457 of the Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle pending final 
decision of the criminal case – Consequently, the trial Court has 
the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim – However, this 
power would have to be exercised in accordance with law in the 
facts and circumstances of each case. [Para 21]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – 
Seized vehicles – Will Court lean against any construction 
that would produce an absurd or unjust result:
Held: It is trite law that the more absurd a suggested conclusion 
of construction is, the more the court will lean against that 
conclusion  – In the instant case, if the respondent-State’s 
interpretation is accepted, then in a case where an accused 
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 
283
Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam
is arrested carrying heroin in a private plane or a private bus 
or a private ship without the k

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.