Seized vehicles may be released on conditions to prevent deterioration and loss of value.

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Royal Enfield motorcycle, sought its interim custody after it was seized in Crime No. 246 of 2026.

The prosecution alleged that her son used the motorcycle to kidnap the victim in connection with offences under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 5(1) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The petitioner, who was not an accused, argued that continued storage would cause deterioration and loss of value, and that she needed the vehicle for her livelihood.

The prosecution opposed release, citing the risk of alienation, alteration, or misuse.

The Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Madurai, dismissed her custody application on 29 July 2026; she challenged that order in revision.

1. Whether the petitioner, as the vehicle’s registered owner, should be granted interim custody of the vehicle seized in the criminal investigation.

2. Whether interim custody should be made subject to conditions protecting the vehicle and the interests of the proceedings.

The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, concerning the need to avoid leaving seized property unused and exposed to deterioration.

Krishnan Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 INSC 748, for the principle that interim custody determines possession, not title, and aims to prevent decay and diminution in value.

Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 (3) SCC 241, and S. Selvaraj v. The Inspector of Police, Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 374 of 2020, decided 17 June 2020, for the Court’s power to impose conditions, including a deposit, when granting interim custody.

The governing principle applied was that interim possession may be entrusted to an appropriate claimant on protective conditions, without deciding title or the merits of the prosecution.

The Court considered that the petitioner claimed registered ownership, was not an accused, and sought the motorcycle for day-to-day livelihood, while the vehicle’s continued retention risked deterioration and loss of value.

It also noted that the alleged occurrence was on 4 April 2026 and the FIR was registered the following day, such that a major portion of the investigation might already have been completed.

Although the prosecution raised concerns about misuse or disposal, the Court held that those concerns could be addressed through conditions, including a deposit, a bond, restrictions on alienation or alteration, an undertaking against illegal use, and an obligation to produce the vehicle when required.

The petitioner must deposit ₹50,000 within 15 days after the order copy is made ready; the amount is to be placed in an interest-bearing fixed deposit until final disposal.

She must also execute the specified bond with two sureties, produce the registration certificate or the prescribed substitute documents, undertake not to use the vehicle illegally, refrain from alienating, encumbering, or altering it, and produce it before the Trial Court when required.

Before release, the Investigation Officer must prepare a detailed panchnama and take photographs and videographs in the presence of the petitioner and two independent witnesses.

The order concerns only interim custody and expresses no opinion on the merits of the prosecution or ultimate confiscation liability.