Registered vehicle owners may obtain interim custody of seized vehicles pending trial, subject to safeguards and confiscation proceedings.

The petitioner claimed to be the registered owner of a Yamaha-Cygnus Ray ZR two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-72-CC-0019.

The vehicle was seized in Crime No.437 of 2026 registered by Suthamalli Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, concerning possession and transportation of 30 grams of ganja.

The alleged occurrence took place on 03 April 2026, and the vehicle and contraband were placed in custody while investigation proceeded.

The petitioner asserted that she was not involved in the offence, that her son had taken the vehicle without her knowledge, and that continued retention of the vehicle would cause deterioration and loss of value.

The Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, dismissed her application for interim custody in Crl.M.P.No.493 of 2026 on 08 June 2026.

The State opposed release on the ground that the vehicle might be alienated, altered, transferred, or misused, and that its release could prejudice the prosecution.

The petitioner challenged that order by way of the present revision.

Whether the registered owner, who was not arrayed as an accused, was entitled to interim custody of the vehicle seized in connection with an NDPS offence.

Whether interim release of the vehicle could be ordered subject to appropriate safeguards, including deposit, bond, production, and non-alienation conditions, without prejudicing confiscation proceedings or the merits of the prosecution.

The Court considered the offences under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act, 1985, and preserved the possibility of confiscation proceedings under Sections 60 and 63 of that Act.

It applied the principle that the court has discretion to grant interim custody of seized property to the person it considers entitled to possession, without finally adjudicating title, particularly to prevent decay and diminution in the property’s value, as stated in Krishnan Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh , 2026 INSC 748.

Relying on Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam , 2025 (3) SCC 241, and the decisions in S. Selvaraj v. Inspector of Police , Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu , Sainaba v. State of Kerala , and other cited decisions, the Court held that interim custody may be granted on appropriate terms, including deposit of money, execution of bonds, preservation of the vehicle’s identity and condition, and an undertaking against illegal use.

The Court found that the petitioner was the registered owner and was not an accused in the FIR, while the alleged occurrence and seizure had taken place several months earlier, indicating that a substantial portion of the investigation might already have been completed.

The State’s concerns regarding alienation, alteration, misuse, and prejudice to the prosecution were addressed through stringent conditions rather than continued retention of the vehicle.

Applying the principle that seized vehicles should not unnecessarily deteriorate in police or court custody, the Court held that interim custody could be entrusted to the petitioner without deciding ownership conclusively or expressing any view on the prosecution case or future confiscation.

The safeguards imposed—including a monetary deposit, bond with sureties, production of the registration certificate, prohibition on alienation or alteration, an undertaking against illegal use, production of the vehicle when required, and preparation of a panchnama with photographs and videography—were considered sufficient to protect the evidentiary and confiscatory interests of the prosecution.

Interim custody of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-72-CC-0019 was granted to the petitioner, subject to proof of ownership and the following conditions: deposit of Rs.20,000 in an interest-bearing fixed deposit; execution of a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties; production of the original registration certificate or prescribed alternative documents; an undertaking not to use the vehicle for illegal activities; prohibition against alienation, encumbrance, or alteration; production of the vehicle before the trial court whenever required; and preparation of a detailed panchnama with photographs and videography before release.

The Court clarified that the order concerned only interim custody and did not determine the merits of the NDPS prosecution or liability for confiscation under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act.