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

In brief

The question

1. 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 High Court allowed the revision and set aside the Magistrate’s order dated 30 September 2026.

It also directed

It directed the Magistrate to release the vehicle forthwith to the petitioner upon his furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹25,000 and executing a bond to produce the vehicle whenever required and not to make any changes or variations to it.

01Facts

The petitioner claimed to be the registered owner of an Activa 125 scooter seized in connection with Crime No. 381 of 2025 under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024. He was not an accused and stated that a friend had used the vehicle.

¶ 2, 4–8 · pp. 1–4

The Judicial Magistrate No. I, Bhavani, dismissed his application for interim custody. The petitioner challenged that order, arguing that the vehicle was deteriorating while stored in an open yard; the State opposed release on the ground that the vehicle was involved in the alleged offence.

¶ 2, 4–8 · pp. 1–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner, as the undisputed registered owner, was entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicle while the criminal proceedings remained pending

¶ 4, 7–9 · pp. 2, 4–5

ii.2. Whether the vehicle’s continued storage in the trial court’s open yard justified setting aside the refusal of release and ordering its return subject to conditions

¶ 5, 10, 13–16 · pp. 2, 5–7

03Law Applied

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 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 addresses property seized by police but not produced before a criminal court and permits orders for its disposal or delivery to the person entitled to possession.

¶ 6 · pp. 3–4

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Court reiterated that seized vehicles should not be kept for prolonged periods and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, or security to ensure their production when required.

¶ 10 · p. 5

The Court also referred to Allahabad High Court decisions holding that pending confiscation proceedings do not, by themselves, bar release of a vehicle where ownership is undisputed and adequate safeguards are imposed.

¶ 11–12 · pp. 5–6

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 ownership was undisputed and that neither the State nor any other person claimed ownership of the scooter.

¶ 13, 15 · pp. 6–7

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai, it considered that continued storage in an open yard would expose the vehicle to deterioration without serving a useful purpose. It concluded that the trial court had not properly exercised its powers under Section 497 and that the vehicle could be preserved as evidence through conditions requiring its production and preventing alteration.

¶ 10, 13–16 · pp. 5–7