Interim Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 40 IA/01/2026
SC 199/226
PS CRIME BRANCH
FIR NO. 298/2015
STATE V/S SAVITA
07.05.2026
This is an application for release of the vehicle i.e. Tata Nexon Xmil.2
Rtn Bs6), bearing Registration No.DL-12CS-5861 on superdari filed on
behalf of applicant.
Present: Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Counsel for the applicant.
1. By means of the present application, the applicant has
sought directions that;
i. Vehicle i.e. Tata Nexon Xmil.2 Rtn Bs6), bearing
Registration No.DL-12CS-5861 be released on
superdari.
2. Reply to the present application is filed.
3. As a matter of fact, the FIR was registered with FIR
bearing no.0298/2025 under Section 20/29 NDPS Act registered at PS
Crime Branch North, Delhi and in the said FIR, the present vehicle was
seized as 2.070 Kg. Charas (commercial in nature) was recovered from
boot space of the said vehicle.
4. In reply to the present application, the State has opposed
the releasing of the present vehicle on the ground that said vehicle is
liable to be confiscated as per Section 60(3) of NDPS Act.
5. I have heard the counsel for the applicant as well as Addl.
PP for the State.
6. Before venturing into the facts of the present case, the law
is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
-- 1 of 4 --
“
Biswajit Dey Vs. The State of Assam” SLP (Crl.) No.13370/2024 and
to proper adjudicate the matter in hand, the relevant paragraphs of the
said judgment are hereby reproduced:-
27. Though the risk of misuse by the
accused or third party of the same plane
or bus or ship cannot be ruled out, yet
the Courts do not take coercive action
on the basis of fear or suspicion or
hypothetical situation.
28. Undoubtedly, the Vehicle is a
critical piece of material evidence that
may be required for inspection to
substantiate the prosecution’s case, yet
the said requirement can be met by
stipulating conditions while releasing
the Vehicle in interim on superdari like
videography and still photographs to be
authenticated by the Investigating
Officer, owner of the Vehicle and
accused by signing the said inventory
as well as restriction on sale/transfer of
the Vehicle.
BROADLY SPEAKING THERE ARE
FOUR SCENARIOS
29. Though seizure of
drugs/substances from conveyances
can take place in a number of situations,
yet broadly speaking there are four
scenarios in which the drug or
substance is seized from a conveyance.
Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle
is the person from whom the possession
-- 2 of 4 --
of contraband drugs/substance is
recovered. Secondly, where the
contraband is recovered from the
possession of the agent of the owner i.e.
like driver or cleaner hired by the
owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has
been stolen by the accused and
contraband is recovered from such
stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the
contraband is seized / recovered from
a third-party occupant (with or without
consideration) of the vehicle without
any allegation by the police that the
contraband was stored and transported
in the vehicle with the owner’s
knowledge and connivance. In the first
two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle
and/or his agent would necessarily be
arrayed as an accused. In the third and
fourth scenario, the owner of the
vehicle and/or his agent would not be
arrayed as an accused.
30. This Court is of the view that
criminal law has not to be applied in a
vacuum but to the facts of each case.
Consequently, it is only in the first two
scenarios that the vehicle may not be
released on superdari till reverse
burden of proof is discharged by the
accused-owner. However, in the third
and fourth scenarios, where no
allegation has been made in the charge-
sheet against the owner and/or his
-- 3 of 4 --
agent, the vehicle should normally be
released in the interim on superdari
subject to the owner furnishing a bond
that he would produce the vehicle as
and when directed by the Court and/or
he would pay the value of the vehicle as
determined by the Court on the date of
the release, if the Court is finally of the
opinion that the vehicle needs to be
confiscated. .
7. As per the law laid down above, the present case is
covered under the second category
, where the contraband is recovered
from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner
hired by the owner thereby, law is against her. Moreover, this court is not
inclined to allow the present application. Thereby, this court is not
inclined to release the vehicle i.e. Tata Nexon Xmil.2 Rtn Bs6), bearing
Registration No.DL-12CS-5861 to the present applicant. Accordingly,
the present application for release of vehicle i.e. Tata Nexon Xmil.2 Rtn
Bs6), bearing Registration No.DL-12CS-5861 on superdari stands
dismissed.
A copy of the order be given dasti.
Harvinder Singh Johal
Spl. Judge(NDPS)/ASJ
North Distt., Rohini Courts,
Delhi/07.05.2026(
j)
-- 4 of 4 --