High Court Directs Trial Court To Number, Hear And Dispose Return‑of‑Property Petitions In NDPS Cases

A single‑judge bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar heard a criminal original petition under Section 528 of BNSS seeking to set aside a docket order dated 06.11.2025 by the Special Court for trial of NDPS cases at Villupuram that had returned, without numbering or hearing, a petition for return of a seized motorcycle. The petition arose after the petitioner, the registered owner of a Bajaj KTM 200 Duke, discovered the vehicle was seized in Crime No.24 of 2025 under the NDPS Act although he was not named as an accused.

The High Court set aside the Trial Court's docket order and directed that the petition be received, numbered and decided on merits in accordance with law. The court observed that returning property petitions summarily by reference to a registry circular was “not proper in view of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as per Article 141 of Constitution of India.” The Court emphasised that “where an owner proves absence of knowledge or connivance, the Special Court is duty‑bound to hear such claim before deciding the fate of the seized vehicle including confiscation.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that the Rules of 2022 cannot be interpreted as divesting the Special Courts of their jurisdiction to entertain an application for interim custody or release of a seized conveyance under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC [Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS]. 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. Any interpretation to the contrary would lead to anomalous and unjust consequences by depriving a bona fide owner of his property without judicial scrutiny or an opportunity of hearing, an outcome wholly inconsistent with the statutory scheme of the NDPS Act and contrary to the fundamental principles of natural justice.” The court further held that “no petition can be returned summarily without giving opportunity of hearing the petitioner.”

Background The petitioner stated that he was a daily wage earner who recently purchased the motorcycle with finance and had lent it to one Naveenkumar to visit family; thereafter the vehicle was seized and Naveenkumar was arrayed as A2 in the NDPS case. The petitioner contended he had no knowledge of the alleged offence and sought interim custody or return of the vehicle. The Trial Judge returned the return‑of‑property petition citing a High Court registry circular (ROC.No.70917‑A/2025/F1 dated 01.09.2025) and did not number or hear the application.

The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, admitted that the petitioner was not an accused but relied on the Trial Court's reliance on the registry circular and observed that Supreme Court precedents set out contingencies to be considered when deciding release of seized vehicles. The High Court reviewed Supreme Court authority including Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, Sainaba v. State of Kerala, Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam and subsequent clarifications in Denash and Tarun Kumar Majhi, which recognised that special courts retained jurisdiction to adjudicate interim custody and final confiscation issues and classified four contingencies for owner involvement. The Madurai Bench decision in Denash had earlier refused interim release in certain NDPS seizures, but the Supreme Court decisions required Special Courts to hear claims and apply contingencies to facts of each case.

Having regard to those authorities, the High Court concluded that the Trial Court erred in returning the petition without considering the merits and set aside the unnumbered docket order dated 06.11.2025. The petitioner was permitted to either represent the original petition or file a fresh application; the Trial Court was directed to receive the petition, number it, hear the petitioner and objections and dispose of it in accordance with law on the facts and circumstances. The Criminal Original Petition stood allowed and the Registry was directed to return the original petition to the petitioner’s counsel.

Case Details: Case No.: Crl.O.P.No.5227 of 2026 Case Title: Murugan v. The State rep. by The Station House Officer, Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police Station (PE Wing), Gingee, Villupuram District. (Crime No.24 of 2025) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K.T.S. Sivakumar For the Respondent(s): Mr. Leronard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor