Courts may grant interim custody of seized vehicles on stringent conditions pending trial or confiscation.

The petitioner claimed to be the registered owner of a Mahindra Swaraj Tractor bearing Registration No. TN 55 BM 7285.

Namanasamuthiram Police Station registered Crime No.43 of 2025 for offences under Sections 303(2) and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, alleging that the petitioner and two others used the tractor for illegally breaking stones in a quarry.

The tractor was seized and kept in judicial custody while investigation was pending.

The petitioner sought interim custody, contending that the vehicle was required for his livelihood and that continued retention in the open would cause deterioration and depreciation.

The Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, dismissed the custody application in Crl.M.P.No.144 of 2026 on 30.07.2026.

The petitioner consequently filed the present revision.

The prosecution opposed release on the grounds that the vehicle might be alienated, altered, transferred, or misused, although it conceded that there was no previous case involving the vehicle.

1. Whether the petitioner, as the claimed registered owner, was entitled to interim custody of the seized tractor during the pendency of investigation and subject to possible confiscation proceedings.

2. Whether the Magistrate’s refusal to release the vehicle should be set aside in view of the risk of deterioration and depreciation caused by prolonged retention in open custody.

3. Whether interim custody could be granted subject to appropriate safeguards, including deposit, bond, restrictions on alienation and misuse, and production of the vehicle before the Trial Court.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning the custody and disposal of property connected with criminal proceedings.

It applied the principle that the Court may entrust interim custody of seized property to the person it considers appropriate, without finally adjudicating title, primarily to prevent deterioration and diminution in value, as recognised in Krishnan Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 INSC 748.

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, and Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 (3) SCC 24, the Court held that vehicles should not ordinarily remain exposed to deterioration and that interim release may be ordered on suitable conditions, including deposit of money.

The Court also relied on S. Selvaraj v. Inspector of Police, Crl.R.C.(MD) No.374 of 2020, and subsequent Madras High Court decisions supporting conditional interim custody of seized vehicles.

The Court found that the alleged occurrence was on 13.05.2026 and that, by the time of consideration, a substantial part of the investigation was likely to have been completed.

Since the petitioner asserted ownership and continued retention of the tractor in an open space would cause deterioration and loss of value, the Court considered interim release preferable to indefinite police or judicial custody.

The prosecution’s concerns regarding misuse, alienation, alteration, and the pending criminal case were addressed through stringent conditions rather than by refusing custody altogether.

The Court clarified that granting custody did not determine ownership, criminal liability, or the vehicle’s ultimate susceptibility to confiscation.

Interim custody of the tractor was granted to the petitioner upon proof of ownership, subject to any confiscation proceedings and the following conditions: deposit of Rs.50,000 before the Judicial Magistrate within 15 days, to be kept in an interest-bearing fixed deposit until final adjudication; execution of a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties for like sums; production of the registration certificate or, where held by the finance company, its photocopy, affidavit, and acknowledgment; an undertaking not to use the vehicle for illegal activities; prohibition against alienation, encumbrance, or alteration; production of the vehicle whenever required; and preparation of a detailed panchnama, photographs, and videography before release.

The order was expressly confined to interim custody and did not affect the merits of the prosecution or final confiscation liability.