Owner-Driver Accused in NDPS Case Can’t Seek Vehicle Custody Till Trial: MP High Court Declines Supurdnama Plea

“Where Contraband Is Recovered From Owner Himself, Reverse Burden Must First Be Discharged”— Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, while refusing interim custody of a vehicle seized in a narcotics case, reiterated the principle that when the vehicle owner is himself an accused and contraband is recovered from his possession, the benefit of supurdnama (interim custody) cannot be granted until trial establishes innocence.

Bench of Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh dismissed the revision filed by the applicant Suresh Yadav challenging the Special NDPS Court’s order dated 31.12.2025, which had rejected his supurdnama application for the seized Pick-Up vehicle bearing number MP-18-ZA-9627.

“Vehicle May Not Be Released Till Reverse Burden Under NDPS Act Is Discharged”—Court Applies Bishwajit Dey Principle

The trial court had denied interim custody of the vehicle on the ground that 18.6 kg of ganja was recovered from the joint possession of the applicant Suresh Yadav and co-accused Badi Pardhi, both of whom were charge-sheeted under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act. The High Court upheld this view, stating:

“Where owner and driver of the vehicle is the person from whom the contraband substance is recovered, till reverse burden is not discharged by the accused, the vehicle may not be released”.

This observation stems from the legal position settled by the Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (CrA No. 87 of 2025), as reiterated in Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2276].

Court Rejects Comparison With Supreme Court’s Judgment in Denash Case

The applicant had sought support from the Supreme Court’s decision in Denash where a vehicle was released despite recovery of ganja from it. However, the High Court clarified that the factual matrix of Denash was entirely different:

“In Denash, the vehicle owner was not the driver, nor was he arraigned as an accused. Contraband was recovered from other charge-sheeted accused, and the vehicle was transporting 29,400 MT of iron sheets. On the contrary, in the present case, the owner himself was driving the vehicle and was found in possession of ganja only”.

Thus, the High Court held that Denash fell under the fourth scenario discussed in Bishwajit Dey (where no knowledge or connivance of the owner is alleged), whereas the present case clearly falls under the first and second scenarios where the accused is either the owner or agent of the owner.

“Criminal Law Not to Be Applied in a Vacuum, But Denash Was Fact-Specific”

The High Court acknowledged that Denash had relaxed the rigid application of categories in Bishwajit Dey, quoting the Supreme Court’s caution:

“Criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case... each case must be examined in light of its peculiar facts and circumstances”.

However, applying this principle, the Court distinguished the current case as one where the owner was not only present but was actively involved in the transport of contraband. Moreover, unlike Denash, no commercial cargo or legitimate goods were being transported — only ganja was found in the vehicle, as per the seizure memo.

Typographical Error in Plea Overlooked; Trial Will Establish All Other Facts

The Court also noted a typographical error in the grounds of revision where the applicant had inadvertently pleaded for bail rather than supurdnama, which was ignored as a harmless mistake.

Ultimately, the High Court refused to interfere with the trial court’s rejection of the supurdnama application, concluding:

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 31.12.2025 cannot be said to be perverse. Accordingly, this revision cannot be allowed and it is dismissed”.

Date of Decision: 05 February 2026