ORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.O.P.No.17707 of 2026 Yuvaraj ..Petitioner(s) Vs State represented by. The Inspector of Police, Arni Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai. ..Respondent

by Sekar Reporter · August 2, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.O.P.No.17707 of 2026

Yuvaraj
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
State represented by.
The Inspector of Police,
Arni Town Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai. ..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the return endorsement made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arni, in surety Memo, dated 26.06.2026 and further directing the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arni, to accept the surety Memo furnished by the petitioner and implement the order dated 18.05.2026 passed in C.M.P.No.470 of 206 in Crime No.75 of 2026 on the file of the respondent by releasing the vehicle to the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s):

For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Kalaikumar

Mr.R.Rajasekaran
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to challenge the order i.e., passed on the surety memo that was produced by the Petitioner on 26.06.2026 pursuant to order dated 18.05.2026 made in CMP.No.470 of 2026 in Crime No.75 of 2026.

2. The brief factual background from which this Criminal Original Petition arises is that the petitioner is Accused No.3 in the above Crime No.75 of 2026. Upon credible information, the respondent police inspected a spot where a lady and others were seen selling some objects in small packets to various persons.

3. Upon seeing the police, the persons who came to purchase the same fled away. Suspecting that it may be contraband as per the NDPS Act and giving the option, the accused permitted the police officers to search them. The Accused No.1, who was a lady, and the Accused No.2, who was present at the scene, were searched, and 50 grams of ganja and 6 bottles of liquor were seized. It is their confession that they were using the said vehicle for selling ganja and liquor, that they were procuring it from Andhra Pradesh, and were selling it to the labourers and other persons who need the same in the said area. Upon the same, the vehicle was also seized and the petitioner was also added as the accused in Accused No.3 in the case.

4. Under the said circumstances, as the car belongs to the petitioner bearing Registration No.TN-12-H-0525, the petitioner filed C.M.P.No.470 of 2026. By an order dated 18.05.2026, the Trial Court ordered the return of interim custody of the said vehicle upon the conditions imposed therein in the said order. However, subsequently, when the petitioner produced surety as per the directions contained in the said order, the same was not accepted and an endorsement was made that the property had already been entrusted to the Drug Disposal Committee to confiscate the property in favour of the Government.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter is no longer res integra and has been covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Denash Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2025 INSC 1258 and submitted that once the property was directed to be handed over to the petitioner, thereafter there is no question of initiation of confiscation proceedings.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that when the vehicle is said to be used for the purpose of selling Ganja and other contrabands, the same can be confiscated in favour of the Government and can be disposed of by the Drug Disposal Committee.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

8. The law governing interim custody, return, or confiscation of vehicles used as conveyances in offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Biswajit Dey -Vs- State of Assam (2025 INSC 32) and Denash -Vs- State of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 1258).

9. This case relates to interim custody of the vehicle, which was used by the accused to sell ganja. The petitioner is not an accused in the instant case. It is not his case that the accused stole his vehicle. Interim Custody can be ordered only if we conclude that (i) the vehicle is not used by the agents/servants of the accused; or (ii) the vehicle is used by third parties/accused for the commission of the offence without the knowledge of the accused. Even if interim custody is granted, the Court shall determine after trial whether the vehicle is liable for confiscation.

10. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the Trial Court, first in ordering the return of the vehicle and thereafter in denying acceptance of surety on the ground that the vehicle will be entrusted to the Drug Disposal Committee, is erroneous. In this case, the prosecution’s initial case points to the regular use of the vehicle by the accused to sell contraband. Considering the facts of the instant case, the investigation has to be completed first. Thereafter, it will be open for the petitioner to move the Trial Court for an application for interim custody, upon which the entire issue shall be reconsidered in accordance with law by the Trial Court, as per the dictum laid down in the decisions cited supra. The respondent police are directed to expedite the investigation and file the final report within two months of receipt of the web copy of the order.

11. This Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

08-07-2026

Neutral Citation: Yes/No
jas

1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Arni.

2. The Inspector of Police,
Arni Town Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District.

3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

jas

Crl.O.P.No.17707 of 2026

08-07-2026