Madras HC Grants Buyer Interim Custody Of Tractor Seized In Theft And Illegal-Mining Case, Subject To Bond And Undertaking

A tractor with trailer bearing registration No. TN-65-AL-9895 was seized in connection with Crime No.203 of 2026, registered under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.

The petitioner sought interim custody under Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), stating that the vehicle would deteriorate if left without maintenance.

The Magistrate dismissed the application, noting that the registration certificate stood in another person’s name, investigation was pending, and the vehicle might be used for a similar offence or sold.

In revision, the second respondent filed an affidavit stating that he had sold the vehicle to the petitioner, delivered possession, and signed the transfer documents.

Sections 497 and 503 BNSS provide for orders concerning the custody or delivery of property during proceedings, including property seized by police and not produced before a criminal court; Section 498 BNSS addresses disposal or delivery at the conclusion of proceedings.

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, or security.

Selvam v. State by Inspector of Police establishes that applications for return of vehicles should be considered on their merits without treating the claimant’s status as an accused as a bar.

R. Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu recognises that vehicles kept in police or court custody during trial may deteriorate and become unusable.

The Court found that the Magistrate’s reasons—including the pending investigation and the possibility of further offending or sale—did not justify prolonged retention of the vehicle, particularly when the second respondent’s affidavit supported the petitioner’s claim of purchase and possession.

Applying the principles against unnecessarily retaining vehicles in police or court custody, the Court noted that no confiscation proceedings had been reported and concluded that interim release was appropriate, subject to safeguards ensuring the vehicle’s preservation and production when required.

Release was conditioned on the petitioner executing a bond for ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like amount, filing photographs of all four sides of the vehicle together with the original registration certificate, and furnishing an affidavit undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when directed.

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