An expired registration certificate does not preclude interim custody for renewal, subject to safeguards.

The petitioner, Bhukya Ramu, claimed ownership of a tractor-trailer bearing Registration No. TS-04-UD-5592, which had been seized by Seerole Police in Crime No. 20 of 2026 in connection with an allegation of illegal sand quarrying and offences punishable under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

He applied for interim custody of the vehicle in Crl.M.P. No. 279 of 2026 in C.C. No. 425 of 2026.

The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubabad, rejected the application on 21 April 2026, principally because the vehicle’s Registration Certificate had expired on 9 March 2023.

The petitioner contended that release of the vehicle was necessary for renewal of its Registration Certificate and that he depended on it for his livelihood.

The State opposed release on the ground that the vehicle had been used in illegal sand quarrying.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim custody of the seized tractor-trailer despite the expiry of its Registration Certificate?

Whether interim custody could be granted subject to conditions safeguarding the vehicle’s production and preservation during the criminal proceedings?

The Court considered the allegation of an offence under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the seizure of the vehicle.

It applied the discretionary principle governing interim custody or release of seized property, under which continued retention of a vehicle is not necessarily required when its production can be secured through appropriate undertakings and conditions.

The Court further accepted that the need to present the vehicle before the Registering Authority for renewal of its Registration Certificate was a relevant consideration.

No specific precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court acknowledged the Magistrate’s reason for refusal—expiry of the Registration Certificate—but held that this circumstance did not by itself disentitle the owner from seeking interim custody.

Since the vehicle was required for the renewal process, its continued detention would cause hardship to the petitioner and affect his livelihood.

The Court balanced the State’s objection concerning the vehicle’s alleged use in illegal sand quarrying by imposing safeguards: execution of a personal bond with two sureties, an undertaking to produce the vehicle whenever required, and a prohibition against alienating or altering its physical features.

On that basis, the Court found it appropriate to grant interim custody pending the proceedings.

The petitioner, described as Accused No. 2, was directed to execute a personal bond for Rs. 25,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubabad.

He was also required to undertake to produce the vehicle before the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate whenever required and not to alienate the vehicle or alter its physical features until disposal of the proceedings.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.