Kerala High Court
Sreelakshmi Vinod vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 2484 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:23573
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 2484 OF 2026
CRIME NO.924/2025 OF Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2026 IN CRMP NO.1 OF 2026
OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
SREELAKSHMI VINOD
AGED 23 YEARS
D/O. VINOD.K.V, KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANNADIPARAMBU
MINOR ROAD, NADATHARA, MULAYAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.,
PIN - 680751
BY ADV SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682031
SR.PP. SMT.SEETHA S.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2484 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:23573
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2484 OF 2026
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the registered owner of a scooter bearing registration No. KL-08/BX 3831, which was seized by the Palluruthy Kasaba Police Station, Ernakulam in Crime No.924/2025 on the allegation that the accused who rode the vehicle has committed an offence under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act', in short), as he was found in conscious possession of 3.02 grams of MDMA. The petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle, filed an application seeking interim custody of the vehicle before the Court of Session, Ernakulam. However, by Annexure-2 order, the said Court has allowed the application subject to conditions. As per condition No.(6) in Annexure-2 order, the above Court has directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.1/- lakh. The CRL.MC NO. 2484 OF 2026 3 2026:KER:23573 said condition is onerous and unjustifiable and is against the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Bishwajith Dey v. State of Assam (2025 (3) SCC 241). Hence, condition No.(6) in Annexure-2 order may be set aside.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The petitioner's vehicle was seized by the Investigating Officer on the allegation that the accused in the crime was found in conscious possession of 3.02 grams of MDMA.
4. Under Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act, any conveyance that has been used for carrying any narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance is liable for confiscation.
5. Interpreting Section 60(3) of the Act, in Thausif Ahammed Bengre v. State of Kerala (2018 (1) KHC 598), this Court has succinctly held that a vehicle can be confiscated only if it is established by the prosecution that the vehicle was used for carrying the narcotic drug, CRL.MC NO. 2484 OF 2026 4 2026:KER:23573 psychotropic substance or controlled substance, that too with the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself or his agent.
6. In Bishwajith Dey's case (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:
33. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take placed 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 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 vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner CRL.MC NO. 2484 OF 2026 5 2026:KER:23573 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".
On a consideration of the facts, especially that the petitioner is not an accused in the crime and further that the accused was found in conscious possession of only 3.02 grams of MDMA, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. In the above circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C. by setting aside condition No.(6) in Annexure-2 order. The petitioner is directed to comply with the other conditions in the above order.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rkc CRL.MC NO. 2484 OF 2026 6 2026:KER:23573 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 2484 OF 2026 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL-08/BX-3831 Annexure 2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2026 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I, ERNAKULAM IN CRL.M.P NO. 1/2026 Annexure 3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2026 IN CRL. M.C NO. 1612/2026