Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Mridul. V vs State Of Kerala on 28 November, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

CRL.MC NO. 10790 OF 2025            1


                                                       2025:KER:91885

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

 FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947

                        CRL.MC NO. 10790 OF 2025

  CRIME NO.39/2025 OF PALAKKAD EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD

        AGAINST   THE   ORDER/JUDGMENT    DATED   24.10.2025   IN   CRMP

NO.4145 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT / RENT

CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , PALAKKAD

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

            MRIDUL. V
            AGED 29 YEARS, VALLULLI HOUSE, MOKAVOOR DESOM,
            ELATHUR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE
            DISTRICT, PIN - 673303

            BY ADVS. SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
            SRI.LIBIN STANLEY
            SMT.SAIPOOJA
            SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL
            SMT.R.GAYATHRI
            SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA
            SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH
            SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
    2       THE EXCISE INSPECTOR
            EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD P.O,
            PALAKKAD DISTRICT,, PIN - 678001

            BY SRI.SANAL P RAJ, PP


     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC NO. 10790 OF 2025            2


                                                      2025:KER:91885

                           ORDER

Dated this the 28th day of November, 2025 The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL 11 BE 8083, which was seized by the Investigating Officer in Crime No.39/2025 of the Palakkad Excise Range Office, for allegedly being involved in an offence punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act', in short).

2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.4145/2025 before the Court of Session, Palakkad (Trial Court). By Annexure 2 order, the Trial Court allowed the application, but has directed that the petitioner should furnish bank guarantee for Rs.2,00,000/-. The said condition is onerous and unjustifiable. Hence, the Crl.M.C

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. CRL.MC NO. 10790 OF 2025 3

2025:KER:91885

4. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner's vehicle was seized by the Investigating Officer for allegedly being involved in the above crime, which is registered under the NDPS Act. 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, psychotropic substance or controlled substance, that too without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself or his agent.

6. Recently, in Denash v. The State of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 1258), the Honourable Supreme Court has held that there is no prohibition to release a conveyance to its owner, on interim custody, if the owner CRL.MC NO. 10790 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:91885 has no culpability in the crime.

7. In the case at hand, the investigation is in progress. The NDPS Act does not insist for cash/bank security to grant interim custody of vehicles, unlike the Abkari Act or the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the definite view that the direction to the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.2,00,000/- is onerous and unjustifiable, and is liable to be interfered by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. However, the petitioner and two solvent sureties shall execute a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, to ensure the compliance of the other conditions in Annexure-2 order.

Accordingly, I allow the Crl.M.C. by setting aside the condition in Annexure-2 order, ordering the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.2,00,000/-, and CRL.MC NO. 10790 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:91885 permitting the petitioner to execute a bond with two solvent sureties for Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the jurisdictional court and specifically undertaking that he shall not alienate/ transfer the vehicle and he shall produce the vehicle before the Trial Court as and when directed. This order shall be read in conjunction with Annexure-2 order except for the condition regarding furnishing of bank guarantee. It is also clarified that this order shall not preclude the competent authority from proceeding with the confiscation proceedings in accordance with law.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE NAB CRL.MC NO. 10790 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:91885 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 10790 OF 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.06.2025 IN B.A. NO.6650/2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.10.2025 IN CRL.M.P. NO. 4145/2025 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE COURT OF SESSIONS; PALAKKAD DIVISION ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2025 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 10191/2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT