Interim custody of seized vehicles should not be denied solely because the claimant is accused.

Police seized a Mahindra Bolero Pickup, registration No. TN 48 K 1345, in connection with Crime No. 12 of 2025, registered under Sections 303(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

The petitioner, an accused in the case, sought interim custody of the vehicle under Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, claiming that it would deteriorate if left in police custody. The Magistrate dismissed the application, relying on the fact that the registration certificate stood in another person’s name, the pending investigation, and the risk of reuse or sale.

In the revision, the person named in the registration certificate was impleaded and filed an affidavit stating that he had sold and delivered the vehicle to the petitioner and signed the transfer documents.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the Magistrate’s order dismissing his application for interim custody set aside and to obtain interim custody of the seized vehicle.

2. Whether interim custody could be granted notwithstanding the pending investigation and the Magistrate’s concerns about ownership, possible reuse, or sale of the vehicle.

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

The court stated that custody or delivery may be sought by a person entitled to possession.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court directed that seized vehicles should not remain idle in police custody and that release may be secured through appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

Selvam v. State by Inspector of Police holds that an applicant’s status as an accused should not, by itself, cloud consideration of an application for return of a vehicle.

The court also relied on 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 court found that the Magistrate had dismissed the application on the basis of the registration certificate, the pending MMDR Act investigation, and the possibility that the vehicle might be reused or sold.

However, the person named in the registration certificate had acknowledged the sale, delivery of possession, and execution of transfer documents in favour of the petitioner.

Applying the principles against prolonged retention of vehicles and in favour of considering custody applications on their merits, the court concluded that interim release was appropriate.

The risks identified could be addressed by imposing a bond, requiring photographs and the original registration certificate to be filed, and obtaining an undertaking to produce the vehicle when directed. No confiscation proceedings had been reported.

The petitioner’s application for interim custody was allowed subject to his executing a bond of ₹5,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum; filing photographs showing all four sides of the vehicle along with the original registration certificate; and filing an affidavit undertaking to produce the vehicle, as it is, whenever directed.

The Magistrate was directed to hand over the vehicle only after those conditions were met.