Interim custody of seized vehicles may be granted to accused owners subject to safeguards.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the revision petitioner was entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicle and mobile phones, and whether the Magistrate’s dismissal order should be set aside.

The court held

The revision was partly allowed.

It also directed

The Magistrate’s order was reversed, and interim custody of the Kia Carens Clavis was granted upon the petitioner executing a bond for ₹7,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, filing photographs of all four sides of the vehicle and the original registration certificate, and undertaking by affidavit to produce the vehicle as and when directed.

The Magistrate was directed to release the vehicle after compliance with those conditions.

The revision was dismissed insofar as it concerned the two mobile phones.

01Facts

Police seized a Kia Carens Clavis and two mobile phones—an iPhone 16 Plus and a OnePlus Nord 2T 5G—in connection with Crime No. 168 of 2026, registered under Section 420 IPC.

¶ 3, 5–8, 10 · pp. 2–5

The accused sought interim custody of the properties under Sections 497 read with 503 BNSS, contending that continued police custody without proper maintenance would cause deterioration.

¶ 3, 5–8, 10 · pp. 2–5

The Magistrate dismissed the application, reasoning that the properties might be used to commit similar offences or be sold.

¶ 3, 5–8, 10 · pp. 2–5

In revision, the State additionally objected that the phones were required for scientific analysis.

¶ 3, 5–8, 10 · pp. 2–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the revision petitioner was entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicle and mobile phones, and whether the Magistrate’s dismissal order should be set aside.

¶ 12 · p. 6

ii.2. Whether interim custody should be granted despite the petitioner being an accused, and subject to the State’s objection that the mobile phones were required for scientific analysis.

¶ 8, 10, 12–13 · pp. 5–6, 10–12

03Law Applied

Sections 497, 498 and 503 BNSS govern, respectively, custody of property produced before a criminal court pending proceedings, disposal of property at their conclusion, and police-seized property not produced before a criminal court; the court may order custody or delivery to a person entitled to possession, subject to appropriate conditions.

¶ 13(1)–(5) · pp. 6–10

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, the Supreme Court stated that seized vehicles should not remain at police stations for long periods and may be released against appropriate bond, guarantee and security.

¶ 13(9) · p. 11

Selvam v. State by Inspector of Police, 2012 (1) MWN (Cr) 288, supports considering vehicle-release applications without treating the claimant’s status as an accused as a bar.

¶ 13(10) · pp. 11–12

The Court also relied on R. Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 INSC 946, for the concern that vehicles kept in police or court custody may deteriorate and become unusable.

¶ 13(11) · p. 12

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 438 Section 442

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 452

04Reasoning

The Court found the Magistrate’s general concerns—that the properties might be used for similar offences or sold—insufficient to justify retaining the vehicle, particularly given the risk of deterioration from prolonged custody.

¶ 13(7)–(13) · pp. 10–12

Applying Sunderbhai and the cited vehicle-release authorities, it held that the petitioner’s status as an accused did not itself preclude interim custody.

¶ 13(7)–(13) · pp. 10–12

The position differed for the mobile phones: the State had raised a specific objection that they were required for scientific analysis, and the Court therefore declined to order their release.

¶ 13(7)–(13) · pp. 10–12