LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/bishwajit-dey-vs-the-state-of-assam-20250107/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Bishwajit Dey vs The State of Assam

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
7 January 2025
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2025
Result
Allowed
Bench
Sanjay Karol, Manmohan
Citation
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 281 : 2025 INSC 32
Acts & Sections
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances… CrPC 1973
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 1 S.C.R. 281 : 2025 INSC 32
Issue for consideration
Interim release of conveyances during the pendency of the trial in NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) cases.
Headnote

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 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]

Read the full headnote (4 more paragraphs)

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 is arrested carrying heroin in a private plane or a private bus or a private ship without the knowledge and consent of the management, then the said plane/bus/ship would have to be seized till the trial is over – 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 – 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. [Paras 24, 26, 28]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance:

Held: Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession 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. [Para 29]

Keywords: Interim release of conveyances · Contraband · Seizure of vehicle · Custody of police · Interim on superdari · Drug trafficking · Release of vehicle · Release in the interim of seized vehicle · Order of confiscation · Transporting narcotic drug · Section 51 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 · Section 451 and section 457 of CrPC · Presumption against absurdity

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Manmohan, J 1. Leave granted. 2. The Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 23rd January, 2024 passed by the Gauhati High Court at Assam in Case number Crl. Rev. No.P/483/2023, whereby the appellant’s writ petition challenging the order dated 09th October, 2023 passed by the Additional Sessons Judge Karbi Anglong, Diphu, in Dillai Police Station case No.32/2023, corresponding to G.R. Case No.150/2023 dated 05th October, 2023 was dismissed. RELEVANT FACTS 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the present case are that the appellant had pu
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →