Seized vehicles may be released into interim custody subject to safeguards, pending confiscation proceedings.

The petitioner claimed to be the owner of a Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No. TN-19-U-2530, which had been seized by Navalpattu Police in Crime No.743 of 2025.

The prosecution alleged that the vehicle had been used by the petitioner’s co-accused for illegally excavating and transporting six units of gravel sand, attracting offences under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.

The petitioner was not arrayed as an accused and sought interim custody of the vehicle, contending that its continued detention in the open would cause deterioration and loss of value.

The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy, rejected the application for custody in Crl.M.P.No.796 of 2026 on 09.02.2026.

The petitioner challenged that order in revision and impleaded Manikandan, Accused No.4 and the alleged previous owner, who expressed no objection to release of the vehicle.

Whether the petitioner, who was not arrayed as an accused, was entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicle pending investigation and possible confiscation proceedings?

Whether the vehicle could be released on appropriate terms and conditions so as to prevent its deterioration while safeguarding the prosecution’s interests?

The Court applied the power of the criminal court to grant interim custody of seized property to the person it considers entitled to possession, without adjudicating final title.

It relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, concerning the prompt release of seized vehicles and prevention of their deterioration; Krishnan Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 INSC 748, recognising that interim custody aims to prevent decay and diminution in the value of property; Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 (3) SCC 241, and the decisions in S. Selvaraj v. Inspector of Police and other Madras High Court cases, affirming that interim custody may be granted subject to safeguards, including monetary deposit and conditions.

The alleged substantive offences were under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 21(4) of the MMDR Act.

The release was expressly made subject to any statutory confiscation proceedings.

The Court noted that the alleged occurrence took place on 27.12.2025, that the petitioner was not named as an accused, and that a substantial part of the investigation was likely to have been completed by the time of consideration of the revision.

Since the vehicle was depreciating while retained in custody and the Court’s function at this stage was only to determine interim possession—not title or final liability—the continued detention was not considered necessary, provided adequate safeguards were imposed.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and the other cited decisions, the Court ordered release upon deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-, execution of a bond with two sureties, production of registration documents, an undertaking against illegal use, and restrictions against alienation, encumbrance or alteration.

The requirement to produce the vehicle whenever directed and the preparation of a detailed panchnama with photographs and videography protected the evidentiary and confiscatory interests of the prosecution.

The petitioner was granted interim custody of the Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No. TN-19-U-2530, subject to any confiscation proceedings and the following principal conditions: deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy, execution of a Rs.1,00,000/- bond with two sureties, production of the registration certificate or prescribed substitute documents, an undertaking not to use the vehicle for illegal activities, prohibition on alienation, encumbrance or alteration, production of the vehicle whenever required, and preparation of a panchnama with photographs and videography before release.

The Court clarified that the order concerned only interim custody and expressed no opinion on the merits of the prosecution or ultimate confiscation liability.