Prolonged police custody without confiscation order warrants vehicle release, subject to conditions and pending proceedings.

The petitioner was the registered owner of an Alto K10 car bearing registration no. BR-06AR-4588, which was seized in connection with Industrial Area Police Station Case No. 123 of 2016, registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

The seizure followed a raid during which approximately 2,300 litres of blue kerosene oil stored in 12 drums were allegedly recovered along with the vehicle and a mini-truck.

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle before the Judicial Magistrate, who called for reports; the Deputy Collector recommended confiscation, but no confiscation proceeding was concluded despite the passage of considerable time.

The vehicle continued to remain at the police station, where the petitioner alleged that it was deteriorating.

The respondents ultimately stated that they had no objection to its release, subject to conditions imposed by the competent authority or court.

Whether the petitioner’s vehicle, seized in connection with an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, should be released when no confiscation order had been passed despite prolonged police custody?

Whether release of the vehicle could be ordered subject to appropriate terms without prejudicing any pending confiscation or criminal proceedings?

The Court applied Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, under which the vehicle had been seized in connection with the alleged offence and could potentially be subject to confiscation proceedings.

It further relied on the principle stated by the Supreme Court in Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, PLJR 2003 (4) 244, that seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations for an unnecessarily long period because prolonged exposure causes deterioration and serves no useful purpose.

The Court also applied the principle that release of seized property may be ordered on appropriate conditions while preserving the authority of the competent court or authority to deal with the property in the pending criminal or confiscation proceedings.

The Court found that the vehicle had remained in police custody for a considerable period and that, admittedly, no confiscation order had been passed.

Applying the principle against indefinite retention of vehicles at police stations, the Court held that continued detention would serve no useful purpose, particularly because the respondents themselves had no objection to release.

The petitioner’s ownership and willingness to furnish an adequate bond and undertaking further supported conditional release.

Since release could be made subject to terms imposed by the competent authority or court, it would not impair the evidentiary or legal interests involved in the criminal case or any future confiscation proceeding.

The respondents were directed to release the Alto car bearing registration no. BR-06AR-4588 in favour of the petitioner, subject to such terms and conditions as might be imposed by the competent authority or court.

The Court clarified that release of the vehicle would not affect any confiscation proceeding or pending criminal proceeding, which would continue in accordance with law.