Interim custody of seized vehicles must be granted to prevent deterioration from exposure pending trial.

The appellant, the registered owner of a Tractor-trolley (Regn. No. C.G.10/BD-5086), challenged the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge, Bilaspur, which rejected his application for the release of the vehicle on Supurdnama.

The vehicle was seized in connection with Crime No. 617/2025 for alleged illegal sand mining at Nagoi Ghat, registered under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 4(1), 4(1-a), and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

The Special Judge had rejected the release on the ground that the vehicle was involved in illegal mining.

The appellant contended that the vehicle was decaying due to weather exposure at the police station and that no purpose was served by its detention till the conclusion of the trial.

1. Whether the trial court was justified in refusing the interim custody of the vehicle to its registered owner solely based on its involvement in illegal mining.

2. Whether the detention of the vehicle at the police station, leading to potential damage and natural decay, warrants its release on Supurdnama under Section 497 of the BNSS.

The Court primarily applied the provisions of Section 30-B(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, regarding appeals, and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) concerning the release of seized property.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283, which mandates the expeditious and judicious exercise of power to release seized articles to prevent their damage or misappropriation while in police custody.

Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai v. State of Gujarat & Another (2013) 3 SCC 240, which observed that keeping seized vehicles in open conditions at police stations leads to irreparable loss and natural decay.

The Court observed that the ownership of the appellant was undisputed.

Applying the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai guidelines, the Court reasoned that keeping the vehicle idle at the police station would lead to its decay from weather exposure, rendering it junk and causing irreparable loss.

While the State argued that the vehicle's number plate had been removed, the Court found that such factors do not override the necessity of preventing the total destruction of the property during the pendency of the trial.

The Court concluded that the vehicle should be released for optimum utilization subject to sufficient safeguards, such as bank guarantees and undertakings, to ensure its production during trial or confiscation proceedings.

The Court directed the immediate release of the Tractor-trolley to the appellant’s interim custody on the following conditions: (i) a personal bond of Rs. 10,00,000/-; (ii) a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 4,00,000/-; (iii) an undertaking not to alter the vehicle’s condition or create third-party rights; and (iv) an undertaking to produce the vehicle as required by the Court or competent authorities.

The Court clarified that this interim custody would cease if confiscation proceedings were finalized against the appellant.