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

The petitioner sought interim custody under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), of three vehicles, two mobile phones and ₹7,500 seized in Crime No. 819 of 2026, registered under Section 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Section 24(1) of the COTP Act.

He claimed the properties were his and that the vehicles would deteriorate if left without maintenance.

The State opposed release, citing the pending investigation, the alleged large quantity of banned products, the petitioner’s alleged similar cases, and the risk of reuse or sale; it also submitted that the phones were required for scientific analysis.

The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application because the alleged offences involved a huge quantity of banned products.

In the revision, the petitioner restricted his claim to the three vehicles.

Section 497 BNSS empowers a criminal court or Magistrate to make appropriate orders for the custody of property produced before it during an investigation, inquiry or trial; Sections 498 and 503 address, respectively, disposal at the conclusion of proceedings and police-seized property not produced before a criminal court.

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 on appropriate bond, guarantee or security.

The court also relied on Selvam v. State by Inspector of Police (2012 (1) MWN (Cr) 288), which held that applications for vehicle return should be considered on their merits without being clouded by the claimant’s status as an accused.

R. Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026 INSC 946) recognised that vehicles held by police or courts during trial may deteriorate and become unusable.

The Magistrate had rejected the application solely on the basis that the alleged offence involved a huge quantity of banned products.

Applying the principles that vehicles should not be kept idle and allowed to deteriorate, and that an accused’s status alone should not determine a vehicle-custody application, the High Court found that interim release of the three vehicles was warranted subject to safeguards.

The State’s objections concerning possible reuse or sale did not justify continued custody once release was conditioned on a substantial bond, documentation and an undertaking to produce the vehicles when required.

The petitioner had, however, limited his revision to the vehicles; accordingly, the court did not grant relief concerning the phones or cash.

The Magistrate was directed to hand over the vehicles upon compliance with those conditions. The revision was dismissed as to the two mobile phones and ₹7,500.