Madras HC Allows Accused Owner Interim Custody of Seized Tractor During Theft Probe, Subject to ₹3 Lakh Bond and Two Sureties

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the Magistrate’s dismissal order set aside and to obtain interim custody of the seized tractor.

The court held

The revision was allowed and the Magistrate’s dismissal order was reversed.

It also directed

The custody application was allowed on condition that the petitioner execute a bond of ₹3,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum; file photographs showing all four sides of the tractor together with the original registration certificate; and execute an affidavit undertaking to produce the tractor, as it is, whenever directed.

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

01Facts

The petitioner, A1, sought interim custody under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) of a Mahindra Swaraj tractor seized in Crime No. 407 of 2026, registered under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

pp. 2–4

He asserted that leaving the tractor in police custody without proper maintenance would cause it to deteriorate.

pp. 2–4

The State opposed release, contending that the investigation was pending and the tractor might be used to commit a similar offence or be sold.

pp. 2–4

The Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, dismissed the custody application on those grounds.

pp. 2–4

The petitioner challenged that order in revision under Section 438 BNSS.

pp. 2–4

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the Magistrate’s dismissal order set aside and to obtain interim custody of the seized tractor.

pp. 5, 10–11

03Law Applied

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 BNSS address disposal or delivery of property at the conclusion of proceedings and police-seized property not produced before a criminal court, respectively.

pp. 5–8

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

p. 9

Selvam v. State by Inspector of Police held that applications for return of vehicles should not be rejected merely because the claimant is an accused.

pp. 9–10

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.

p. 10

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 held that the pending investigation and the State’s speculative concerns that the tractor might be reused or sold did not, without more, justify keeping it in custody.

pp. 9–11

Leaving a vehicle unused risks deterioration, and an accused’s status alone does not bar interim release.

pp. 9–11

As no confiscation proceedings had been reported, the Court found that the tractor could be released subject to safeguards securing its production and preservation.

pp. 9–11