[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shakil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8473
1 CRR-791-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 31st OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 791 of 2026
SHAKIL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Santosh Kumar Meena - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aditya Garg - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Heard on I.A.No.2401/2026, which is an application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the present revision
petition.
The delay is of 303 days.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and
the delay in filing the present revision petition is hereby condoned.
2. This revision petition under Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 is preferred
being aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2025 by the Special Session Judge
(NDPS) Act, Jaora, District Ratlam in MJCR No.54/2025 whereby the
prayer for release on Supurdagi of the vehicle bearing registration No.MP-
09-GG-8229 seized in connection with Crime No.158/2020 registered at
Police Station Taal, District Ratlam under Sections 8, 15, 25 and 29 of the
NDPS Act, 1985 has been rejected.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8473
2 CRR-791-2026
3. The prayer has been disallowed on the ground that the vehicle was
being used for transporting huge contraband of 802 Kg poppy straw and
there is a possibility that the vehicle used in committing the offence.
4. Challenging the order, this revision petition is preferred on the
ground that the impugned order has been passed, ignoring the principles laid
down in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujraj; AIR 2008
SC 638 and the fact that no purpose would be served if the vehicle is lying in
the campus of the police station without any protection.
Heard.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the revision petition.
Perused the record.
6. The material placed before the Court reveals that the revision
petitioner claims to be the registered owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was
being used to transport contraband through his nephew Sohel, and Sohel was
apprehended with the contraband. The CDR discloses an active connection
between the revision petitioner and his nephew Sohel. The Supreme Court in
the case of Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (2025) 3 SCC 241 while laying
down certain propositions with regard to interim release of vehicle under
NDPS Act, has categorically observed as under:-
"33. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8473
3 CRR-791-2026
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.
34. 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 agent, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8473
4 CRR-791-2026
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. Therefore, in view of the above principles, the case of the present
petitioner is of second scenario and not entitled for release on interim
custody of the vehicle bearing registration No.MP-09-GG-8229 as he is an
accused in the present case.
8. In the result, since there is no substance in the revision, the same
stands dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
VS
