Courts should release seized vehicles to undisputed owners on appropriate security to prevent deterioration.

The petitioner, the registered owner of a two-wheeler bearing registration No. TN-18-BQ-9632, sought its release after police seized it in Crime No. 443 of 2026 under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024.

The Judicial Magistrate I, Ponneri, dismissed her application in C.M.P. No. 577 of 2026 on 11 September 2026.

In revision, the petitioner argued that the vehicle was deteriorating in open-yard custody and relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai; the State opposed release on the ground that the vehicle was involved in the alleged offences.

Whether the Magistrate’s refusal to release the seized vehicle was sustainable where the petitioner’s ownership was undisputed and continued custody risked deterioration of the vehicle.

Whether the vehicle could be released to the petitioner subject to safeguards to secure its production when required.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) empowers a criminal court to make appropriate orders for the custody and disposal of property produced before it during an inquiry or trial; Section 503 permits 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.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court emphasised prompt exercise of the court’s powers over seized property and indicated that vehicles should not be left in custody for long periods where release can be secured by bond, guarantee, or security.

The court also referred to Allahabad High Court decisions holding that pending confiscation proceedings do not, by themselves, bar release of a vehicle, and that release may be conditioned on a guarantee and an undertaking to produce the vehicle when required.

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.

Applying Sections 497 and 503 BNSS and the cited authorities, it reasoned that continued storage in an open yard served no useful purpose and risked damage to the vehicle.

The Magistrate’s refusal to release it was therefore unsustainable; the risk of its non-production could be addressed through appropriate conditions.

The Magistrate was directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner upon her furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹20,000 and a bond undertaking to produce the vehicle when required and not to make any changes or variations to it.

No order as to costs was made.