Courts should release seized vehicles to registered owners with safeguards against deterioration.

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner, as the undisputed registered owner, was entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicle while the criminal proceedings remained pending

The court held

The revision was allowed, and the Magistrate’s order dismissing the custody application was set aside.

It also directed

The Magistrate was directed to release the vehicle forthwith to the petitioner upon his furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹25,000 and a bond undertaking to produce the vehicle when required and not to alter or vary it.

The Registry was directed to send the order to the court concerned for compliance and information.

01Facts

The petitioner claimed ownership of a blue TVS Radeon motorcycle seized by the respondent police on 9 May 2026 in Crime No. 40 of 2026, registered under Sections 4(1)(c) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024.

¶ 1–2, 4–7

His application for interim custody was dismissed by the Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, in C.M.P. No. 1415 of 2026.

¶ 1–2, 4–7

He sought revision, contending that the vehicle would deteriorate if kept in an open yard and offering to comply with conditions for its release.

¶ 1–2, 4–7

The State opposed release, submitting that the vehicle had been seized in connection with the alleged offences.

¶ 8

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner, as the undisputed registered owner, was entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicle while the criminal proceedings remained pending

¶ 4–8, 15

ii.Whether the Magistrate’s refusal to release the vehicle was sustainable in light of the powers and principles governing custody and disposal of seized property

¶ 9–16

03Law Applied

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), empowers a criminal court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending inquiry or trial and provides for its documentation, photography or videography, and eventual disposal.

¶ 6

Section 503 BNSS empowers a Magistrate to order disposal or delivery of property seized by police but not produced before a criminal court, including delivery to the person entitled to possession on appropriate conditions.

¶ 6

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Court reiterated that seized vehicles should not be left unused and deteriorating for long periods and may be released on suitable bond, guarantee, or security.

¶ 10

The Court also referred to Allahabad High Court decisions holding that the pendency of confiscation proceedings does not, by itself, bar release of a vehicle.

¶ 11–12

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497 Section 503

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

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

¶ 15

Keeping the motorcycle in an open yard would risk its deterioration without serving a useful purpose.

¶ 13–16

The Court considered that the Magistrate had not properly exercised the powers available under Section 497 BNSS and emphasized prompt, judicious handling of seized property under Sections 497 and 503.

¶ 13–16

It concluded that conditional release would protect the vehicle while preserving its availability for the proceedings.

¶ 13–16