As per case facts, Suresh Yadav filed a Criminal Revision challenging the rejection of his application for interim release of his seized vehicle, a Pick Up, involved in an NDPS ... Act case. He contended he was falsely implicated, unaware of contraband being carried by a co-accused, and sought release to prevent vehicle damage. The prosecution asserted that the applicant, also the vehicle owner and driver, was an accused from whom a substantial amount of contraband was jointly recovered. The question arose whether the seized vehicle, belonging to an accused from whom contraband was recovered, should be released on Supurdnama prior to the discharge of the reverse burden of proof. Finally, the High Court, referencing Supreme Court judgments in Denash and Bishwajit Dey, observed that when the owner and driver are the same accused and contraband is recovered from them, the vehicle might not be released until the reverse burden of proof is met. Distinguishing the present case from precedents where owners were not accused or additional commercial goods were involved, the court found no perversity in the trial court's order and dismissed the revision, noting that all facts need to be established during trial.