Confiscated Vehicles Used In NDPS Offences Must Be Released On Financial Bonds To Prevent Value Erosion: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Crime was committed by the driver of the vehicle or by the person who kept drugs in the vehicle, not by the vehicle itself. After the vehicles are confiscated, they must be released on financial bonds, which means that if the vehicle is eventually confiscated, the owner shall pay an amount equal to the value of the vehicle," Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that vehicles confiscated under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) should be released on financial bonds during the pendency of an appeal.

A bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur observed that keeping seized vehicles in police stations leads to their natural decay and serves no purpose for the State or the owner. The Court emphasized that the objective of the law is to inflict financial loss on offenders, not to allow valuable machinery to turn into scrap.

The applicant-appellant, Gurjinder Singh, was convicted by a Special Judge in Patiala for offences under Sections 27A, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. Along with the conviction, the Trial Court ordered the confiscation of his TATA truck, which was allegedly used for transporting over 250 kilograms of poppy husk. Challenging the conviction and the confiscation, the applicant moved the High Court seeking the release of the vehicle on financial bonds while his appeal remained pending adjudication.

The primary question before the Court was whether a vehicle already ordered to be confiscated by a Trial Court could be released to its owner on interim custody during the pendency of an appeal. The Court was also called upon to determine the legal impact of the prolonged disuse and deterioration of seized vehicles kept in police custody.

Trial Court Can Confiscate Only On Conclusion Of Trial

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam, noting that seized vehicles can only be confiscated upon the conclusion of a trial when the accused is convicted, acquitted, or discharged. Justice Chitkara observed that since the appeal against the conviction is currently pending, the possibility of an ultimate acquittal cannot be ruled out. The bench noted that it was not currently examining the legality of the conviction itself but focused on the impact of continued retention of the vehicle.

Nod To Release To Prevent Economic Loss And Environmental Waste

The Court highlighted that keeping a vehicle in a parking lot or a police station causes it to become unfit for the road, eventually devaluing it to junk. The bench expressed concern over the "carbon footprints" and human effort wasted when machinery is allowed to erode without being monetized. It was observed that when confiscated vehicles are kept inside police compounds, the planet, the financier, the purchaser, and the State all become losers due to the erosion in the value of the machine.

Confiscation Aimed At Financial Dissuasion, Not Destruction

The High Court clarified that the intent behind confiscating vehicles under the NDPS Act is to inflict financial loss on owners to dissuade them from allowing their vehicles to be used for illicit traffic. However, the Court noted that this should not lead to the dismantling of the vehicle. By releasing the vehicle on a financial bond, the State ensures that if the confiscation is eventually upheld, the owner is bound to pay the market value of the vehicle with interest.

Adoption Of BNSS Provisions For Disposal Of Property

The bench referred to Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which corresponds to the erstwhile Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC, dealing with the disposal of property. The Court noted that under the new Sanhita, the Magistrate is empowered to make orders for the proper custody of property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial. It was observed that the Court must exercise its judicial discretion to balance the rights of a bona fide owner with the need for detention.

"When the confiscated vehicles are kept inside and outside the compounds of the Police Stations... apart from being eyesores, all and everyone become the losers, starting from our planet that suffered the irreparable loss, the equity provider, the financier, the purchaser, and even the State."

Mandatory Procedure For Release On Financial Bonds

To safeguard the State's interest, the Court laid down a specific procedure for the release of such vehicles. The applicant must file an application along with a valuation report from a certified valuer and a copy of the Registration Certificate. The owner is required to furnish a personal bond and a bond from a solvent guarantor for an amount equal to the truck’s current market value. This bond must include an undertaking to pay the market value plus 6% interest compounded annually if the confiscation is upheld.

No Absolute Restriction On Alteration Or Sale Post-Release

The Court further held that subject to the continuation of the financial bonds and any hypothecation, there shall be no restriction on the owner to make alterations to the vehicle, such as changing its color or interior. Crucially, the bench ruled that unless prohibited by another specific order, there should be no restriction on selling or transferring the ownership rights of the vehicle. The Court stated that the registration certificate should be returned to the owner after keeping an authenticated copy for the record.

Direction To District Judiciary Against Mechanical Rejections

In its concluding observations, the High Court issued a directive to the District Judiciary, urging them not to reject applications for the release of vehicles in a mechanical manner. The Court emphasized that if a vehicle is not required for evidentiary purposes, such as identification or forensic collection, its continued detention is unnecessary. The bench clarified that the ultimate outcome regarding final confiscation remains subject to the final decision of the pending appeal.

The High Court allowed the application and ordered the release of the truck to Gurjinder Singh. The Court specified that this order is subject to compliance within ninety days, failing which it shall stand recalled automatically under Sections 403 and 528 of the BNSS, 2023. The applicant's undertaking to pay the current market value with interest in the event the confiscation order is upheld was accepted by the Court as a sufficient safeguard for the State.

Date of Decision: 29 May 2026