Police lack power to seize proceeds of crime directly; must invoke Section 107 of BNSS for attachment.

The petitioners, owners of a Mercedes Benz S350 and a Land Rover Defender, sought interim custody of their vehicles which were seized by the respondent police in connection with Cr.No.82 of 2025.

The vehicles were originally owned by Futuristic Global Resource Private Limited (the accused company) and were transferred to the petitioners on February 20, 2025, and May 2, 2025, respectively—prior to the registration of the FIR on May 5, 2025.

The lower court dismissed the applications for interim custody, citing a lack of proof regarding the payment of sale consideration and the allegation that the vehicles were purchased using "proceeds of crime".

The petitioners challenged this dismissal via Criminal Revision under Sections 438 r/w 442 of the BNSS.

1. Whether the police have the power to directly seize vehicles alleged to be "proceeds of crime" without following the attachment procedures mandated under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to interim custody of the vehicles despite the ongoing investigation into the source of funds for the original purchase?

Section 107 of the BNSS, which provides the specific legal framework for the attachment and forfeiture of property derived from proceeds of crime, replacing the necessity of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944.

Supreme Court precedent Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283, which established that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate in police stations and should be released on proper bond and security.

At the stage of interim custody, the court is not required to adjudicate final title.

The court reasoned that even if the prosecution's claim—that the vehicles were "proceeds of crime"—was true, the BNSS provides a specific statutory mechanism under Section 107 for attachment.

Direct seizure in lieu of following this procedure is considered illegal.

Regarding the lower court's finding on the lack of proof of consideration, the High Court observed that the Registration Certificates (RC) were already transferred to the petitioners' names prior to the FIR registration.

The court emphasized that keeping high-value vehicles idle in a police station leads to unnecessary deterioration and concluded that interests of justice would be served by releasing the vehicles subject to stringent conditions to ensure their production during trial, without making a final determination on the validity of the transfer or ownership.

The release was made subject to the execution of personal bonds (Rs. 13,00,000 and Rs. 40,00,000 respectively), production of original RC books for verification, an undertaking not to alienate or alter the vehicles, and a proviso that the return is subject to any future attachment/confiscation proceedings initiated under Section 107 of the BNSS.