Courts should release seized vehicles to registered owners on security rather than allow deterioration pending trial.

The petitioner sought release of her two-wheeler, seized in connection with a case registered under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, dismissed her application for return of the vehicle; she challenged that order in revision, asserting that she was its undisputed registered owner and that continued storage in an open yard would cause deterioration.

The judgment states that the vehicle was seized on 30 September 2026 but that the Magistrate’s order was made on 11 September 2026, an apparent date inconsistency.

1. Whether the Magistrate’s refusal to release the vehicle was legally sustainable, given the petitioner’s asserted undisputed ownership and the risk of deterioration while it remained in open storage.

2. Whether the vehicle could be released to the petitioner subject to conditions securing its production when required by the court.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) empowers a criminal court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property produced before it during an inquiry or trial; Section 503 addresses a Magistrate’s powers concerning property seized by police but not produced before a criminal court.

The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, for the principle that seized vehicles should not be left in prolonged custody and may be released on appropriate bond, guarantee, or security to ensure their return when required.

It also referred to Allahabad High Court decisions concerning release of vehicles during confiscation proceedings.

The Court considered the petitioner’s ownership undisputed and noted that neither the State nor another person claimed the vehicle.

It reasoned that keeping the vehicle in an open yard would serve no useful purpose and could result in damage, and that the Magistrate had not properly exercised the powers available under Section 497 BNSS.

Applying the approach in Sunderbhai, the Court found that the vehicle could be protected and made available to the court through conditions requiring security, a bond, and production when directed.

It directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner upon her furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹20,000 and executing a bond to produce the vehicle when required and not to alter or vary it.

There was no order as to costs.