A seized vehicle may be released to its undisputed owner on safeguards pending trial.

The petitioner, M/s. Jeevitha Traders, sought interim custody of its Ashok Leyland tipper lorry, seized on 9 June 2026 in Crime No. 146 of 2026 in connection with alleged offences under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi, dismissed the petitioner’s application for release on 13 July 2026.

The petitioner challenged that order, asserting that it was the undisputed registered owner, was not an accused, and that continued storage in an open yard would damage the vehicle.

The State opposed release on the ground that the vehicle had been involved in the alleged offences.

1. Whether the Magistrate’s refusal to release the seized vehicle was sustainable where the petitioner’s ownership was undisputed and continued retention risked deterioration of the vehicle.

2. Whether the vehicle could be released to the petitioner subject to conditions securing its production and preservation.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers a criminal court to make appropriate orders for the custody and disposal of property produced before it during an inquiry or trial; Sections 497(2)–(5) provide for documentation, photography or videography, and timely orders concerning the property.

Section 503 BNSS empowers a Magistrate, where seized property is not produced before a criminal court, to order its disposal or delivery to the person entitled to possession, subject to appropriate conditions.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be kept for prolonged periods and that they may be released on suitable bonds, guarantees, and security.

The Court also referred to Allahabad High Court decisions holding that pending confiscation proceedings do not, by themselves, bar release of a vehicle where ownership is undisputed, subject to safeguards.

The Court found that the petitioner was the registered owner and that neither the State nor any other person claimed ownership of the vehicle.

Applying Sections 497 and 503 BNSS and the principles in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, it concluded that keeping the vehicle in an open yard would serve no useful purpose and would expose it to deterioration, while appropriate conditions could protect the interests of the proceedings.

The Magistrate’s refusal to release the vehicle was therefore unsustainable.

The Magistrate was directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹1,00,000 and a bond undertaking to produce the vehicle when required and not to make any changes or variations to it.