Courts may grant interim custody of seized vehicles subject to appropriate safeguards.

The petitioner sought interim custody of a Honda Dio seized in Crime No.791 of 2026, registered under Section 4(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024 and Section 4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937.

The prosecution alleged that the vehicle had been used to possess 13 liquor bottles for unlawful sale.

The petitioner claimed ownership, though the vehicle was not yet registered.

The Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli, declined custody on 7 September 2026; the petitioner challenged that order in revision.

The prosecution opposed release, citing potential alienation or misuse and the petitioner’s 10 prior cases of a similar nature.

Whether the petitioner should be granted interim custody of the seized Honda Dio despite the prosecution’s objections and the vehicle’s unregistered status.

Whether interim custody could be granted subject to conditions that preserve the vehicle’s evidentiary and confiscation-related availability.

The petition invoked Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, 2023, in revision from an order on an application under Section 503(1) of the BNSS.

The Court relied on the principle that a court ordering interim custody determines possession, not title, and may act to prevent the property’s deterioration or loss in value, as stated in Krishnan Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 INSC 748.

It also relied on Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 (3) SCC 241, and S. Selvaraj v. Inspector of Police, Crl.R.C.(MD) No.374 of 2020, for the power to impose conditions—including a deposit—when releasing a vehicle.

The Court further referred to M/s. ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 INSC 940, and four Madras High Court decisions on interim vehicle custody.

The Court considered that the alleged occurrence was on 7 July 2026 and reasoned that, by the time of its decision, the major portion of the investigation might have been completed.

Although the prosecution raised concerns about misuse and alienation and pointed to the petitioner’s prior cases, the Court concluded that interim release could be balanced against those concerns through safeguards.

It therefore ordered release upon proof of ownership and subject to any confiscation proceedings, with conditions including a ₹5,000 deposit, a bond with two sureties, an undertaking against illegal use, a prohibition on alienation or alteration, and production of the vehicle when required.

It also directed the Investigating Officer to prepare a panchnama and create photographic and video records before handing over the vehicle.

The Court expressly left title and ultimate confiscation liability undecided.

It directed that the Honda Dio be entrusted to the petitioner upon proof of ownership and compliance with the specified conditions, while clarifying that the order expressed no opinion on the merits of the prosecution or the vehicle’s ultimate liability to confiscation.