Supreme Court reject bail application as accused was having criminal antecedents of similar nature

We would have definitely considered the plea for bail

only on the ground that the petitioner is in judicial custody as

an under trial prisoner past more than eight years, however,

what has deterred us in exercising our discretion are the

antecedents of the petitioner of the very same nature with which

he has been charged with in the presence case. {Para 2}

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10438/2026

LISHAM IBUNGOTOMBA SINGH Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL 

Date : 01-09-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN

Print Page

Supreme Court : Drug Disposal Committee Cannot Dispose Of Seized Vehicle U/NDPS Act Without Trial Court's Orders

We are in full agreement with the view taken in Biswajit Dey   MANU/SC/0035/2025 : 2025:INSC:32 : (2025) 3 SCC 241 since Sub-section (1) of Section 63 provides that whether the Accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the Court shall decide whether any Article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation Under Section 60 or Section 61 or Section 62 and that if it decides that the Article is so liable, order of confiscation may be passed. Section 60 makes liable, inter alia the conveyance; in which the offensive substance is carried, to confiscation. Sub-section (3) provides an exception insofar as the owner proving the use; without his knowledge and connivance and he having made reasonable prautions against such use. In fact, the statute by Section 63(1), specifically provides for confiscation by the Magistrate and not by the DDC. We have also looked at the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, which prescribes the manner in which the seized contraband is to be classified, weighed and stored. It also prescribes the manner in which sampling has to be done in the presence of a Magistrate and speaks of disposal too. Rule 16 specifically reads so:

16. Items that can be disposed of. - Having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution and constraints of proper storage space, all narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances and conveyances, as soon as may be after their seizure, shall be disposed of in the manner determined Under Section 52A of the Act. {Para 11}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4183 of 2026

Decided On: 24.08.2026

R. Manimaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Citation: 2026 INSC 946,MANU/SC/0983/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: What procedure the court should follow while deciding application for release of vehicle at interim stage in NDPS offence?

Therein the learned judges also contemplated four scenarios in which contraband is seized from a vehicle. The first of which was the owner itself being in possession of the vehicle and the drugs; then, the owner's driver or cleaner, thus his agents being in possession; third, if the vehicle had been stolen and; last, when a third party in the vehicle is found in possession. It was held that in the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an Accused and in the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and his agent would not be arrayed as an Accused. It was also held that, in the first two scenarios, it may not be proper for the Court to release the vehicle on interim custody, while in the last two scenarios, it could be done. We have to immediately notice that the said declaration applied only to interim custody and not to the final release of the vehicle. {Para 9}

13. It cannot be forgotten that the vehicle kept in the custody of the Police or the Court, during the pendency of the trial, may deteriorate and become unusable in the long run. It is hence the finding of this Court in Biswajit Dey   MANU/SC/0035/2025 : 2025:INSC:32 : (2025) 3 SCC 241 that the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (or the analogous provisions of the BNSS) can be invoked even in NDPS cases.

14. However, if none appears to seek custody of the vehicle, then to avoid wastage of a valuable asset, the I.O. may move the Court, if the owner does not approach the Court for interim custody, to refer it for disposal before the DDC. In that circumstance necessarily the Court has to issue notice to the owner of the vehicle and afford an opportunity of hearing before such reference is made. Even if the reference is made after giving an opportunity for hearing, the DDC also has to hear the owner before the asset, in the form of a vehicle, is sold in public auction. On such sale being carried out, the amount received shall be deposited before the Jurisdictional Court, since the procedure delineated for disposal does not include confiscation. Statutorily the power of confiscation is on the Court, trying the offence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4183 of 2026

Decided On: 24.08.2026

R. Manimaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Citation: 2026 INSC 946,MANU/SC/0983/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court Explains Procedure For Disposal Of Vehicles Seized Under NDPS Act; Says Notice To Owner Mandatory

The view taken by the High Court of Madras in Nahoorkani1 runs counter to the view of this Court in Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam   MANU/SC/0035/2025 : 2025:INSC:32 : (2025) 3 SCC 241. On reading the NDPS Act, this Court was of the view that the vehicle in which the contraband is alleged to have been found carried, can be confiscated by the Trial Court only on conclusion of the trial, when the Accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. It was also held that, if the view is, of confiscation, then an opportunity of hearing has to be granted before such order is passed. There can be no confiscation, if the owner is able to prove that the vehicle was used without the owner's knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the vehicle by the Accused persons. {Para 8}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4183 of 2026

Decided On: 24.08.2026

R. Manimaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Citation: 2026 INSC 946,MANU/SC/0983/2026.

Print Page