Sl. No.03 17.08.2026 Suman Ct. 237 CRR 5444 of 2025 Sumitra Shaw Vs. The State of West Bengal Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh Mr. Tanmay Chowdhury ..for the petitioner Mr. Somnath Adhikary Mr. Supreem Naskar ..for the State By filing the present application, the petitioner seeks interim release of a vehicle bearing Registration No. WB16BN-9324, seized in connection with Pandua Police Station Case No. 182 of 2025 dated March 10, 2025, under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). It appears that, earlier, the petitioner approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Hooghly, seeking release of the vehicle. By an order dated December 9, 2025, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the said prayer. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the vehicle ought to be released in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and that the petitioner has not been shown as an accused therein. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported at (2025) 3 SCC 241 (Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam), it is submitted that the vehicle in question ought to be released in favour of the petitioner, particularly since she has not been arrayed as an accused in the case. The learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, admits that no charge-sheet has yet been filed against the petitioner in the present case. He, however, further submits that the husband of the petitioner is an accused in the case. It is submitted that a total quantity of 103.34 kilograms of ganja was recovered from the godown of the petitioner's husband. At the time of seizure, the vehicle in question was found to be carrying 27.850 kilograms of ganja and cash amounting to Rs. 2,99,800/-. The vehicle was seized from the parking lot of the said godown. It is true that, in Bishwajit Dey (supra), the Supreme Court has specifically held that there is no absolute bar or restriction under the NDPS Act against the interim release of a vehicle. It has further been held that interim release of a vehicle need not, in every case, necessarily await the conclusion of the trial. At the same time, however, the Supreme Court has clarified that no absolute proposition of law has been laid down in the said judgment and that it remains open to the trial Court to take 2 a different view where the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant. This Court has already taken note of the prosecution case. The contraband articles referred to hereinabove were seized from the godown of the petitioner's husband, though the ownership of the vehicle stands in the name of the petitioner. The vehicle in question was seized from the parking lot of the said godown. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that, at this stage, and before conclusion of the trial, it would not be appropriate to release the vehicle by way of an interim order. Accordingly, CRR 5444 of 2025 is dismissed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.) 3