Pending ownership verification does not bar interim release of a seized vehicle to its registered owner.

The petitioner challenged the JMFC, Kesinga’s order dated 5 August 2026 refusing interim release of a vehicle seized in Kesinga P.S. Case No. 218 of 2026, involving alleged offences under Section 111(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

A charge sheet had been filed, but the Investigating Officer stated that the vehicle remained necessary for verification of ownership documents and the owner’s claim.

The petitioner was the registered owner’s elder brother, and the vehicle had been seized from him.

The JMFC had refused release because the petitioner’s document did not authorize him to receive the vehicle on the registered owner’s behalf.

Whether the seized vehicle should remain in custody for verification of ownership documents after the charge sheet had been filed, or could be released subject to appropriate conditions.

Whether the vehicle could be released into the interim custody of its registered owner notwithstanding the petitioner’s lack of authority to receive it on the owner’s behalf.

The revision was brought under Section 442 of the BNSS, 2023, read with Section 438 of the BNSS, corresponding to Sections 401 and 397 of the CrPC.

The Court applied the principle that a seized vehicle need not be kept idle where no provision making it liable to confiscation had been brought to its notice, and where the relevant verification could be completed after release by imposing appropriate conditions.

The vehicle may be released into the interim custody of the person entitled to it, subject to terms and conditions fixed by the court.

Although the Investigating Officer said the vehicle was still required to verify ownership documents and the owner’s claim, the Court held that this verification could be completed after release and did not justify continued detention.

Keeping the vehicle idle would serve no useful purpose, particularly as no applicable confiscation provision had been identified.

Since the petitioner was not shown to have legal authority to receive the vehicle for the registered owner, the Court directed release to the registered owner instead.

The JMFC, Kesinga was requested to release the seized vehicle into the interim custody of its registered owner, on such terms and conditions as it considered fit and proper.