Courts may release seized vehicles to registered owners pending trial on security and production conditions.

The petitioner claimed to be the registered owner of a Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire seized by police on 30 June 2026 in Crime No. 122 of 2026, registered under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.

The Special Court dismissed his application for interim custody on 15 September 2026.

He challenged that order, contending that the vehicle was deteriorating while kept in an open yard and relying on the undisputed ownership and his willingness to comply with conditions.

The State opposed release on the ground that the vehicle was connected with the alleged offences.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers a criminal court to make appropriate orders for custody of property produced before it during an inquiry or trial; it also provides for recording the property’s description and photographs or videography and for its eventual disposal.

Section 503 permits a Magistrate to order disposal of, or delivery to the person entitled to possess, property seized by police but not produced before a criminal court.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be kept for long periods and that prompt custody orders may be made on appropriate bonds, guarantees or security to ensure their return when required.

The Court also referred to Allahabad High Court decisions treating pending confiscation proceedings under the U.P. Excise Act as no bar to release of a vehicle on safeguards.

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

Keeping it in an open yard would serve no useful purpose and risked damage, while conditional release could protect the proceedings by ensuring the vehicle’s production when required and preventing alteration.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and the powers under Sections 497 and 503 BNSS, the Court held that the Special Court had not properly exercised its power and that its refusal to release the vehicle was unsustainable.

It directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner upon his furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹25,000, filing a bond to produce the vehicle whenever required by the concerned court, and undertaking not to make changes or variations to it.