A driving licence seized during a pending investigation must be returned absent a conviction.

The petitioner, a government transport bus driver, was involved in a road accident on 29 July 2026. A case was registered against him in Crime No.221 of 2026 under Sections 281 and 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the police seized his driving licence and forwarded it to the Regional Transport Officer (RTO).

The petitioner sought its return, stating that the RTO’s custody of the licence prevented him from driving for his employer.

On 6 October 2026, the Court initially directed the RTO to complete the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act within three weeks after giving the petitioner a personal hearing.

On the petitioner’s request for reconsideration, and with the Special Government Pleader’s concurrence, the Court modified that order on 7 October 2026, relying on an earlier decision in W.P.No.25370 of 2024.

Whether the RTO could retain the petitioner’s driving licence while the FIR remained under investigation and no conviction had been entered against him.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the immediate return of his driving licence.

The RTO had initially relied on Section 19(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act as the basis for seizure and proposed following the statutory procedure, but the modified order did not separately analyse that provision.

The Court applied the principle stated in its decision in W.P.No.25370 of 2024, dated 3 September 2024: where an FIR is pending investigation, the licence ought not to be seized in the absence of an order of conviction against the driver; the occurrence of an accident, without use of the vehicle or licence for an illegal purpose, did not justify continued seizure on the facts considered.

The Court treated the issue as covered by its earlier decision and noted that the FIR against the petitioner remained under investigation.

Applying the principle in that decision, it concluded that the licence should not remain seized without a conviction. The amended order also characterized the incident as an accident in which a pedestrian succumbed to injuries, and found no basis to withhold the licence pending the criminal investigation.

It accordingly allowed the writ petition and made no order as to costs.