Interim custody of a seized vehicle should not be denied merely because the claimant is an accused.

The petitioner, arrayed as the third accused, sought interim custody of a JCB bearing registration No. TN 55 CU 3038, seized in Crime No. 28 of 2026 registered under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

The Judicial Magistrate dismissed her application under Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, reasoning that the vehicle might be confiscated. The petitioner challenged that order in revision under Section 438 BNSS.

Sections 497 and 503 BNSS empower the court or Magistrate, as applicable, to make orders concerning the custody or delivery of property pending proceedings, including property allegedly used in an offence; Section 498 BNSS concerns disposal of property at the conclusion of proceedings and permits delivery subject to a bond.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations for long periods and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

Selvam v. State establishes that an applicant’s status as an accused should not, by itself, cloud the court’s consideration of a vehicle-release application.

The Court also cited R. Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu for the principle that a vehicle kept in police or court custody during trial may deteriorate and become unusable.

The Magistrate had rejected the application based on the possibility of confiscation, but the High Court noted that no confiscation proceedings had been reported as initiated against the vehicle.

Applying the cited principles, it held that prolonged retention of the JCB could cause deterioration and that the application required judicial consideration notwithstanding the petitioner’s status as an accused. Interim custody could therefore be granted on conditions securing the vehicle’s preservation and production when required.

The application for interim custody was allowed subject to the petitioner executing a bond for ₹10,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, filing photographs of all four sides of the vehicle and its original registration certificate, and giving an affidavit undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when directed. The Magistrate was directed to release the JCB only after compliance with those conditions.