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

The petitioner sought return of her Tata Tiago, which she claimed to own and which police had seized in connection with an alleged offence under Sections 4(1)(A) and 14(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Tambaram, refused release; the petitioner challenged that order in revision, arguing that the vehicle was deteriorating in open-yard storage and relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai.

The judgment’s caption refers to Crime No. 377 of 2026, while its factual account identifies Crime No. 138 of 2026.

Whether the Magistrate’s refusal to release the petitioner’s vehicle was sustainable where her ownership was undisputed and continued storage risked deterioration

Whether the vehicle could be released subject to conditions securing its production and preservation during the proceedings

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 permits a Magistrate to order disposal or delivery of seized property not produced before a criminal court, including delivery to the person entitled to possession on suitable conditions.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be kept for prolonged periods and that their release may be secured by appropriate bonds, guarantees, or security. The Court also referred to Allahabad High Court decisions stating that pending confiscation proceedings do not, by themselves, bar release of a vehicle.

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

Keeping it in an open yard would risk damage without serving a useful purpose. Applying Sections 497 and 503 BNSS and the principles in Sunderbhai, the Court concluded that the vehicle could be returned while safeguarding the proceedings through conditions requiring a bank guarantee, production when required, and no alteration to the vehicle.

The Magistrate was directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner upon her furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹35,000 and a bond undertaking to produce the vehicle when required and not to alter it. No order as to costs was made.