Vehicle Seized in NDPS Cases Cannot Be Confiscated Before Trial Concludes: Allahabad High Court Orders Fresh Consideration

Confiscation Can Only Follow Conviction, Acquittal, or Discharge – Premature Seizure Violates Law - In a significant ruling Allahabad High Court set aside the order of the Special Judge (NDPS) Court, Saharanpur, which had confiscated an Innova car allegedly used for drug trafficking. The Court ruled that "confiscation of a vehicle in NDPS cases can only take place after the conclusion of the trial, either upon conviction, acquittal, or discharge."

The petitioner, Baldhir, had challenged the trial court's order dated June 20, 2023, which rejected his plea for the release of his Innova car (Registration No. HR78-3205) and ordered its confiscation. The police had recovered 10 grams of smack from the vehicle and charged the petitioner under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

The High Court ruled that the trial court had acted prematurely by confiscating the vehicle before the trial was concluded, observing that "such an order is contrary to Section 63(1) of the NDPS Act, which mandates that confiscation can only occur after the trial is completed."

"NDPS Act Prohibits Confiscation of Vehicle Before Trial Ends" – High Court Finds Trial Court Order Unlawful

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was a habitual offender who purchased the vehicle using proceeds from the sale of contraband. The police argued that the vehicle was being used to transport narcotic substances and, therefore, must be confiscated under Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner’s counsel countered this argument, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (2025), which held that: "A vehicle seized in an NDPS case cannot be confiscated before the trial is concluded. The law requires the trial court to first determine the guilt or innocence of the accused before passing any confiscation order."

The High Court, agreeing with this precedent, ruled that "Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act permits confiscation of a vehicle only after the trial court decides whether the accused is guilty or innocent. Premature confiscation violates the statutory scheme of the Act."

"Trial Court Must Consider Release of Vehicle on Merits Instead of Ordering Automatic Confiscation"

The High Court also noted that "merely because an accused owns a vehicle allegedly used in an NDPS offense does not mean it must be confiscated outright. The trial court must consider whether the vehicle can be released on its merits."

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bishwajit Dey, the Court clarified that: "Normally, if the accused is the owner of the vehicle, the court may hesitate to release it during the trial. However, there is no rigid rule, and the trial court must assess each case on its own facts before rejecting an application for release."

The High Court found that "the trial court did not properly consider the petitioner’s request for release and instead ordered direct confiscation, which is legally unsustainable."

Final Judgment: Confiscation Order Set Aside, Trial Court to Reconsider Release Application

Allowing the revision, the Allahabad High Court ruled: "The order dated 20.06.2023, confiscating the Innova car (Registration No. HR78-3205), is set aside. The trial court is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle on its own merits, strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey."

The Allahabad High Court’s ruling clarifies that confiscation of vehicles in NDPS cases cannot be ordered before the trial concludes. The judgment ensures that "legal safeguards against arbitrary seizure and confiscation are upheld, preventing premature deprivation of property before guilt is established."

By directing the trial court to reconsider the release application on merits, the Court has reaffirmed that "confiscation under the NDPS Act must follow due process, and trial courts cannot bypass statutory requirements."

Date of decision: 04/03/2025