Kerala High Court
Mujeeb Rahaman vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2026
Author: K.Babu
Bench: K. Babu
2026:KER:12565
Crl.R.P.No.14 of 2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA,
1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 14 OF 2026
CRIME NO.301/2025 OF Hosdurg Police Station, Kasargod
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2025 IN CRMP
5909/2025 IN SC NO.494 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL
SESSN.COURT (ADHOC-II)KASARAGODE
REVISION PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
MUJEEB RAHAMAN,
AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O SAHAD M, RESIDING AT GAREEB MANZIL,
PUNCHAVI, OZHINHAVALAPP, HOSDURG, PIN -
671314
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMED ALI
SHRI.KURIAN JOSEPH (ARAKKUNNAM)
SHRI.JACOB MATHEW
SMT.AISHA SUBAIR
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.,
PIN - 682031
2026:KER:12565
Crl.R.P.No.14 of 2026 2
2 THE CHAIRMAN
DRUG DISPOSAL COMMITTEE, KASARAGOD,
PIN - 671121
BY ADV.
SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:12565
Crl.R.P.No.14 of 2026 3
K.BABU, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.14 of 2026
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2026
ORDER
The challenge in this Revision Petition is to the order dated 31.10.2025 in Crl.M.P.No. 5909 of 2025 in S.C.No.494 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court - II, Kasaragod. The petitioner is the RC owner of the motor vehicle bearing registration No. KL 14 W 7803. He is accused No.1 in the above case, wherein he is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act'). It is alleged that the vehicle referred to above was used by the accused to carry the contraband substance involved. The petitioner filed an application seeking interim custody of the vehicle under Section 503 of the BNSS. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application. This order is under 2026:KER:12565 Crl.R.P.No.14 of 2026 4 challenge in this Revision Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that even if the revision petitioner is an accused, the learned Sessions Judge has the discretion to grant interim custody of the vehicle taking into account the nature of the allegations.
4. The learned counsel relied on Sunderbai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283], General Insurance Council v. State of A.P. ((2007) 12 SCC 354), Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025 KHC OnLine 6890) and Pradeed B v. District Drug Disposal Committee (2024 (2) KHC 274) in support of his contention.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, relying on Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam [(2025) 3 SCC 241], submitted that in a case where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband is recovered, the vehicle may not be released unless the 2026:KER:12565 Crl.R.P.No.14 of 2026 5 reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that as the vehicle is subjected to confiscation and the Drug Disposal Committee has taken cognizance of the offence, interim custody cannot be granted, especially in view of the allegation that the petitioner is the accused in the crime.
6. The question whether the Special Court is entitled to invoke Section 457 Cr.P.C. for ordering interim custody of the vehicle was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Pradeed B. (supra). This Court held that the Special Court is entitled to order interim custody of the vehicle. The Full Bench has also taken note of the fact that there is no enabling provision in the NDPS Act, authorising the Drug Disposal Committee to order interim custody of the vehicle or conveyance.
7. In Bishwajit Dey (supra), the Apex Court while categorizing the various scenarios, in which substance is seized from a conveyance observed thus:-
"29. 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 2026:KER:12565 Crl.R.P.No.14 of 2026 6 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.
30. 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 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.
31. This Court clarifies that the aforesaid discussion should not be taken as laying down a rigid formula as it will be open to the trial Courts to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant."
(emphasis supplied)
8. In Denash (supra), the principle declared in Bishwajit Dey was followed.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the impact of the decisions in Sunderbai Ambalal Desai 2026:KER:12565 Crl.R.P.No.14 of 2026 7 (supra) and General Insurance Council (supra). The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered whether, prima facie, prosecution could establish the conscious possession of the contraband substance at the time of the incident. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was driving the vehicle involved and he had no conscious possession of the contraband allegedly seized. In Denash (supra), the Apex Court held that the authority of the Special Court to pass appropriate orders for interim custody during the pendency of the trial, as well as to make final determination upon its conclusion, continues to operate independently of the disposal mechanism envisaged under the said Rules.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tenor of the impugned order is that interim custody could not be granted as the vehicle is now produced before the Drug Disposal Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered whether the petitioner discharged the reverse burden proof or not.
2026:KER:12565
Crl.R.P.No.14 of 2026 8
Having regard to the submissions, I feel that the petitioner can be given a further opportunity to agitate the question of reverse burden proof before the learned Sessions Judge. Consequently, the order dated 31.10.2025 in Crl.M.P.No. 5909 of 2025 in S.C.No.494 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court - II, Kasaragod stands set aside. The learned Sessions Judge shall reconsider Crl.M.P.No.5909/2025 in the light of the principles discussed above.
The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
K.BABU JUDGE VPK 2026:KER:12565 Crl.R.P.No.14 of 2026 9 APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET NO. 14 OF 2026 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
301 OF 2025 OF THE HOSDURG POLICE STATION.
Annexure A2 CARBON COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31- 10-2025 OF THE HONOURABLE SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD, IN CRL.M.P NO.
5909 OF 2025.