In a significant ruling on the rights of innocent vehicle owners, the Telangana High Court has directed the release of a Hyundai Creta seized in an NDPS case where the owner was not an accused. The Court emphasized that prolonged custody of a third-party vehicle without proper consideration of the owner's rights causes undue hardship, setting aside the trial court's dismissal of the interim custody application.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Midde Swamy Goud, is the owner of a Hyundai Creta car bearing registration number TS-09-EV-7353. The vehicle was seized by the Zaheerabad Town Police Station on 15.05.2025 in connection with FIR No. 147 of 2025, registered under Sections 8(c), 22(C), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The FIR alleged that accused No. 2 was transporting 110 grams of Alprazolam (a contraband substance) in the petitioner's vehicle. Notably, the petitioner was not named as an accused in the crime.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is a 54-year-old businessman from Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District
- The vehicle (Hyundai Creta, TS-09-EV-7353, Chassis No. MALGU14UM3OE726J) was seized on 15.05.2025
- The FIR alleged transportation of 110 grams of Alprazolam in the vehicle
- The petitioner was not an accused in the FIR and claimed no knowledge of the contraband
- The vehicle remained in police custody for one and a half years without resolution
Procedural History
- 15.05.2025: FIR No. 147 of 2025 registered at Zaheerabad Town Police Station under NDPS Act
- 15.05.2025: Vehicle seized by police
- Date not specified: Petitioner filed an application before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, seeking interim custody of the vehicle under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
- 12.02.2026: Trial court dismissed the application (Crl.M.P.No. 80 of 2026)
- Date not specified: Petitioner filed Criminal Petition No. 5014 of 2026 before the Telangana High Court
- 07.04.2026: High Court disposed of the petition with directions
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Release of the seized vehicle (Hyundai Creta, TS-09-EV-7353) from police custody
- Setting aside of the trial court's order dated 12.02.2026 dismissing the interim custody application
- Directions to the police to release the vehicle subject to reasonable conditions
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an innocent owner of a vehicle seized in connection with an NDPS offence, where the owner is not an accused, is entitled to interim custody of the vehicle under Section 457 of the CrPC or Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), particularly when the vehicle has been in police custody for an extended period without trial progression.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner is not an accused in the FIR and has no connection to the alleged offence
- Prolonged custody of the vehicle without trial violates the petitioner's right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India
- The trial court failed to consider the pecuniary hardship caused to the petitioner, who uses the vehicle for personal business
- Section 457 CrPC empowers courts to release seized property to the rightful owner subject to conditions
- The vehicle's continued custody serves no investigative purpose as the petitioner is not an accused
For the Respondent
- The vehicle was used in the commission of an offence under the NDPS Act, justifying its continued seizure
- Release of the vehicle may impede investigation or allow tampering with evidence
- The petitioner is not entitled to interim custody until the trial concludes
The Court's Analysis
The High Court critically examined the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's application, noting that the petitioner was not an accused in the FIR and had no involvement in the alleged offence. The Court observed:
"Even according to the Police, the petitioner was not an accused in the said crime. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy in Crl.M.P.No. 80 of 2026 in Crime No. 147 of 2025 is set aside."
The Court relied on the principle that prolonged seizure of a third-party vehicle without trial progression causes undue hardship to the owner. While the NDPS Act imposes strict penalties for drug-related offences, the Court emphasized that innocent owners cannot be penalized indefinitely for offences they did not commit. The judgment underscores the balancing act between investigative needs and the right to property, holding that interim custody must be granted subject to reasonable conditions to prevent misuse.
The Court distinguished this case from scenarios where the vehicle owner is an accused or complicit in the offence. Here, the petitioner's lack of involvement and the extended custody period (one and a half years) weighed heavily in favor of releasing the vehicle.
The Verdict
The Telangana High Court set aside the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, in Crl.M.P.No. 80 of 2026. The Court directed the release of the petitioner's vehicle (Hyundai Creta, TS-09-EV-7353) subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh only)
- The petitioner shall furnish two sureties, each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy
- The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking that:
- He will not alienate the vehicle
- He will not change its physical features
- He will produce the vehicle as and when required until the disposal of the proceedings
- The Station House Officer, Zaheerabad Town Police Station, shall inform the RTA authority not to transfer the vehicle to any third party until the disposal of Crl.M.P.No. 80 of 2026 in Crime No. 147 of 2025
The criminal petition was disposed of accordingly, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Innocent Owners Have a Right to Interim Custody
This judgment reinforces that innocent owners of vehicles seized in criminal cases cannot be deprived of their property indefinitely. Practitioners should argue:
- Section 457 CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS) mandates release of seized property to the rightful owner if no longer required for investigation
- Prolonged custody without trial progression violates Article 300A (right to property)
- Courts must balance investigative needs with the hardship caused to innocent owners
Conditions for Release Are Non-Negotiable
- Personal bond and sureties are standard conditions to ensure compliance
- Undertaking not to alienate or modify the vehicle is critical to prevent misuse
- RTA notification ensures no third-party claims during pendency
Practitioners must ensure clients are prepared to comply with these conditions to secure release.
NDPS Cases Require Strict Scrutiny of Ownership
- Vehicle owners not named as accused must be immediately notified of seizure and their rights
- Police must justify continued custody if the owner is not complicit
- Trial courts must expedite hearings on interim custody applications to prevent undue hardship
This judgment serves as a precedent for lower courts to avoid mechanical dismissal of such applications and to consider the merits of each case on an individual basis.
