Car Owner's 6-Year Delay Sinks Sec 528 BNSS Plea: Raj HC

Registered Owner of Opium-Carrying Car Denied Section 528 BNSS Relief After Six-Year Delay: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 18 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a Section 528 BNSS petition by the registered owner of a car from which opium was seized in 2009. He challenged a 2017 order of the Special Judge (NDPS), Bhawanimandi, issuing non-bailable warrants against him on a supplementary complaint. The Court relied on his unexplained six-year delay, records showing him as the owner, the NDPS Act presumptions and his non-cooperation with the investigation (paras 10.1, 11.2-11.4, 12-13).

Key holdings

Section 528 BNSS relief needs material from the accused that is sound, indubitable and rules out the accusations without evidence being recorded (para 11.1).

A 2017 order challenged in 2024 without a reasonable explanation for the delay fails on the principle that the law aids the vigilant (para 11.2).

Sections 25 and 35 of the NDPS Act draw an inference against the owner of a conveyance and presume culpable mental state; the records showed the petitioner as owner (para 11.3).

Wrong addresses for the claimed transferee and unanswered Section 67 summons counted against the petitioner (paras 11.4, 12).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

On 11.10.2009 three persons were arrested with 1,100 grams of opium from a car registered in the petitioner's name; they were later convicted (para 3). He said his firm had handed the car to a contractor in 1998 under a settlement put in writing in 2000, though it was not transferred because of a hypothecation (paras 2-3, 5). On 25.05.2017 the Central Narcotics Bureau filed a supplementary complaint, he was summoned for offences under Sections 8/25 of the NDPS Act, and on 06.11.2017 the Special Judge issued non-bailable warrants against him (paras 4, 10.1). After anticipatory bail on 21.08.2023 (para 10.2), he challenged that order in 2024 (paras 1, 11.2).

Court's Findings

The Court set out the test for its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS: the accused's material must be sound, reasonable and indubitable, must rule out the accusations without evidence being recorded, and must not be refuted by the prosecution. Here the prosecution rejected his case outright, and the Court was convinced by the respondent's averments (para 11.1). Applying the maxim that the law aids the vigilant, it noted that the 2017 order was challenged only in 2024, with no reasonable explanation for a delay of about six years (para 11.2). Sections 25 and 35 of the NDPS Act draw an inference against the owner of a conveyance and a strict presumption of culpable mental state, and the ownership of the car is reflected against the petitioner (para 11.3). The supplementary complaint, extracted by the Court, records that he gave wrong addresses for the subsequent buyer and the contractor and did not appear despite Section 67 summons (para 11.4). The judgments he cited were held distinguishable on facts (para 11.5). On the NDPS provisions, the unexplained delay, the ownership records and his non-cooperation in the investigation and trial, the Court declined to interfere (para 12).

Legal Principle

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is exercised only where the accused's material is sound and indubitable and displaces the accusations without evidence being recorded. An unexplained six-year delay in challenging a warrant order, records showing the accused as the vehicle's owner, the presumptions under Sections 25 and 35 of the NDPS Act and non-cooperation justified refusal (paras 11.1-11.4, 12).

Precedents Relied Upon

State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. Criminal Appeal Nos. 735-55 of 2009
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 6, 11
Cited by the petitioner, with the other judgments listed in para 6, for the submission that the prosecution must show foundational facts to invoke Sections 25 and 35 of the NDPS Act and bears the onus; the Court held the judgments relied on by the petitioner distinguishable on facts (para 11.5).
Minu Kumari & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1937
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 6, 11
Cited by the petitioner, with the other judgments listed in para 6, for the submission that the prosecution must show foundational facts to invoke Sections 25 and 35 of the NDPS Act and bears the onus; the Court held the judgments relied on by the petitioner distinguishable on facts (para 11.5).
Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi AIR 2013 SC 2753
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 6, 11
Cited by the petitioner, with the other judgments listed in para 6, for the submission that the prosecution must show foundational facts to invoke Sections 25 and 35 of the NDPS Act and bears the onus; the Court held the judgments relied on by the petitioner distinguishable on facts (para 11.5).

View all precedents (4)

Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat Criminal Appeal No. 1884/2013
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 6, 11
Cited by the petitioner, with the other judgments listed in para 6, for the submission that the prosecution must show foundational facts to invoke Sections 25 and 35 of the NDPS Act and bears the onus; the Court held the judgments relied on by the petitioner distinguishable on facts (para 11.5). The first name is printed ‘Shaileshbahi’ in para 6.

Statutory Provisions

Registered Owner of Opium-Carrying Car Denied Section 528 BNSS Relief After Six-Year Delay: Rajasthan High Court

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Statutory Provisions

Related Judgments

Mere Registered Ownership of a Vehicle Is Not Enough for a Section 25 NDPS Charge: Rajasthan High Court

Registered Ownership Alone Cannot Prove Section 25 NDPS Offence: Supreme Court Acquits Truck Owner

Truck Co-Owner Not Liable Under Section 25 NDPS Without Proof of Knowledge: Supreme Court Acquits