In criminal litigation under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, one recurring procedural issue that litigants frequently encounter is the seizure and prolonged detention of vehicles used in alleged drug offences. While seizure of property used in illegal activity is statutorily permissible to prevent interference with investigations, courts have repeatedly underscored that indefinite detention of vehicles especially where the owner is innocent cannot be sustained. 
What is Supurdgi in NDPS Law?
Supurdgi refers to a legal mechanism by which custody of a seized vehicle (or other property) can be handed over to a third party usually on condition during the pendency of criminal proceedings. Under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now mirrored under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), and the NDPS Act read with relevant Supreme Court guidelines, Courts have carved out principles to balance investigative imperatives with protection of innocent owners’ rights.
Recent Clarification by the Rajasthan High Court
In a recent order highlighted by Shekhawat Legal, the Rajasthan High Court reinforced that a vehicle cannot be kept seized indefinitely when the registered owner is not involved in the offence. The key takeaways from the judgment include: 
✔️ No Involvement of Owner: When investigation confirms that the owner neither had knowledge of nor participated in the offence, this special circumstance weighs heavily in favour of interim release. 
✔️ Mere Pendency of Investigation ≠ Grounds to Deny Release: The court clarified that mere pendency of investigation or non-filing of the charge-sheet cannot be a standalone reason to refuse the interim release. 
✔️ Supurdgi Conditions: Courts should grant release on supurdgi with appropriate conditions — such as execution of bonds, conditions on use, or regular reporting to ensure that the vehicle remains available for legal processes while protecting the rights of innocent owners. 
Judicial Rationale
The courts’ reasoning rests on well-settled principles of criminal jurisprudence:
• Presumption of Innocence: An innocent vehicle owner, whose property was merely used without his knowledge, must not be punished by indefinite deprivation of property.
• Proportionality: Seizure and detention of property must be proportionate to the needs of investigation and trial. Once the purpose of seizure is served, the property should be returned subject to safeguards.
• Avoiding Unnecessary Harm: Prolonged detention of vehicles at police stations often leads to damage or loss, causing undue hardship to owners with no nexus to the alleged crime.
Practical Impact for Litigants and Practitioners
The Court’s reaffirmation has significant implications for criminal defence strategy in NDPS cases:
• File Early Applications for Supurdgi: Defence counsel should proactively seek interim release of vehicles where the owner is not implicated.
• Provide Evidence of Non-Involvement: Affidavits, third-party testimony, and investigative reports can help establish lack of knowledge or connivance.
• Ensure Protective Conditions: Courts often grant release subject to conditions including bonds and supervisory reporting balancing legal procedure with investigative needs.
Conclusion
Criminal law must strike a balance between effective enforcement against narcotics trafficking and protection of innocent citizens’ rights. Courts, including the Rajasthan High Court, have reinforced that vehicles seized under the NDPS Act cannot be held indefinitely when the owner is not culpable. The legal doctrine of supurdgi serves as a critical tool to uphold fairness without compromising the integrity of the criminal justice process.
For detailed legal assistance on NDPS matters, property release applications, bail strategy, and procedural safeguards, Shekhawat Legal’s criminal law team is available to advise clients across jurisdictions.
Add a Comment