Madras HC Grants Accused Interim Custody Of Tipper Seized In MMDR Case, Subject To ₹10 Lakh Bond And Two Sureties

The petitioner, A2, sought interim custody under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), of a Bharath Benz tipper seized in Crime No. 172 of 2026, registered under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the MMDR Act.

He submitted that the vehicle would deteriorate if left without proper care. The State opposed release, contending that the vehicle might be used for similar offences or sold; the Magistrate dismissed the application, also noting that it had been used to transport gravel soil contrary to the licence.

The petitioner challenged that dismissal in revision.

Section 497 BNSS empowers a criminal court or Magistrate to make appropriate orders for the proper custody of property produced before it during an investigation, inquiry or trial; Section 498 concerns disposal of property at the conclusion of proceedings, while Section 503 addresses property seized by police but not produced before a criminal court.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations for long periods and that their return may be secured by appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

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

The Court also referred to R. Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, which recognised that vehicles kept in police or court custody during trial may deteriorate and become unusable.

The Magistrate had refused custody based on the risk of further offending or sale and the alleged use of the vehicle contrary to its licence. The High Court held that vehicle-custody applications must be considered judicially and expeditiously, regardless of whether the applicant is accused, and that prolonged retention risks deterioration.

As no confiscation proceedings had reportedly been initiated, the Court found that the vehicle could be released on safeguards ensuring its production when required and preserving a record of its condition.

Interim custody was granted subject to the petitioner executing a bond of ₹10,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, filing photographs of all four sides of the vehicle and its original registration certificate, and submitting an affidavit undertaking to produce the vehicle as directed.

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