Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2025

The Supreme Court of India, in Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assam [Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2025, decided January 7, 2025; 2025 INSC 32], delivered a landmark judgment allowing the interim release of a truck seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), setting an important precedent on balancing enforcement of drug laws with protection of innocent owners’ rights.

Facts and Background
Bishwajit Dey, the appellant, owned a truck used commercially, which was stopped during a police checkpoint in Assam on April 10, 2023. Authorities found 24.8 grams of heroin concealed inside the vehicle. The main accused, Md. Dimpul, who boarded the truck in Manipur, was arrested at the scene. Neither the truck owner nor the driver was implicated in the offence. The truck was seized and kept in police custody.

Dey sought interim release of the vehicle, arguing it was his sole source of livelihood and that prolonged detention was causing deterioration and financial loss. The trial court and Gauhati High Court denied the release, citing the NDPS Act’s stringent provisions.

Legal Issues
Whether the NDPS Act prohibits interim release of vehicles seized in drug trafficking cases.

Applicability of general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) relating to release of seized property.

Balancing the State’s interest in preserving evidence with the owner’s right to livelihood and property.

Supreme Court’s Findings
The Court held that the NDPS Act does not expressly bar interim release of seized vehicles. It emphasized that in the absence of specific statutory prohibition, the general provisions of the CrPC—particularly Sections 451 and 457—apply to seized property.

The Court acknowledged that prolonged custody could cause the vehicle’s deterioration and economic hardship to an innocent owner uninvolved in the crime. It stressed that courts must balance the need to preserve evidence with the owner’s fundamental rights.

Relying on precedents such as Sainaba vs. State of Kerala (2022), the Court directed the trial court to release the vehicle on “superdari” (custodial bail) subject to safeguards:

Preparation of a detailed videographic and photographic inventory of the vehicle, authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner, and accused.

The appellant must provide a bond ensuring the vehicle’s availability for trial and agree not to sell or transfer ownership during the trial.

The vehicle must be produced when required by the court.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies that:

NDPS Act does not prohibit interim release of vehicles if the owner is not implicated.

General CrPC provisions protect property rights and prevent undue hardship.

Courts must ensure procedural safeguards to preserve evidence while allowing owners to mitigate economic loss.

This ruling sets a humane precedent protecting innocent owners from collateral damage in NDPS prosecutions.