A seized vehicle may be released on safeguards where confiscation proceedings have not commenced.

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the Magistrate’s dismissal order set aside and obtain interim custody of the seized vehicle.

The court held

The revision was allowed, and the Magistrate’s order dated 16 April 2026 was reversed. The application for interim custody was allowed on condition that the petitioner execute a bond of ₹10,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, file photographs of all four sides of the vehicle and its original registration certificate, and provide an affidavit undertaking to produce the vehicle as directed.

It also directed

The Magistrate was directed to release the vehicle only after compliance with these conditions.

01Facts

The petitioner, the first accused in Crime No. 28 of 2026, sought interim custody of his Ashok Leyland tipper lorry, registration No. TN 31 BY 8949, seized in a case registered under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 21(1) and (2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. He applied under Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), arguing that detention without proper maintenance would cause the vehicle to deteriorate.

pp. 2–3

The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application, reasoning that the case was under the MMDR Act and the vehicle might be confiscated. The petitioner challenged that order in revision.

pp. 1–2 · p. 4

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the Magistrate’s dismissal order set aside and obtain interim custody of the seized vehicle.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 12

03Law Applied

Sections 497 and 503 BNSS empower a criminal court or Magistrate to make appropriate orders concerning the custody or delivery of property seized in connection with an offence; Section 498 BNSS concerns disposal of property at the conclusion of proceedings.

pp. 6–9 · ¶ 13(1)–(5)

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations for long periods and that appropriate bonds, guarantees, or security may be taken to secure their return. Selvam v. State supports considering applications for vehicle return on their merits, without treating the claimant’s status as an accused as a bar. The Court also relied on R. Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu for the principle that a vehicle kept in police or court custody during trial may deteriorate and become unusable.

p. 10 · ¶ 13(8)–(9) · pp. 10–11 · ¶ 13(10)–(11)

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 438 Section 442 Section 497 Section 503

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 303

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 Section 21

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 452

04Reasoning

The trial court’s refusal rested on the possibility of confiscation because the case was registered under the MMDR Act. The High Court noted, however, that no confiscation proceedings had been reported as initiated against the vehicle.

p. 11 · ¶ 13(12)

Applying the principles that prolonged detention may cause a vehicle to deteriorate and that interim custody can be secured through appropriate safeguards, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s application required consideration notwithstanding his status as an accused.

pp. 10–11 · ¶ 13(8)–(13)