Seized vehicles may be released to undisputed owners on security pending trial.

The petitioner claimed ownership of a Yamaha MT-15 seized by the police on 21 November 2025 in connection with Crime No. 338 of 2025, registered under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

The Judicial Magistrate dismissed his application for interim custody of the vehicle.

The petitioner challenged that order, arguing that the vehicle was deteriorating in open storage and relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai.

The State opposed release on the ground that the vehicle was involved in the alleged offences.

Whether the Magistrate’s refusal to release the seized vehicle was sustainable where the petitioner’s ownership was undisputed and the vehicle risked deterioration in open storage.

Whether the vehicle could be released to the petitioner subject to conditions while the criminal case remained pending.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers a criminal court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending inquiry or trial and provides for its documentation, photography or videography, and disposal or delivery.

Section 503 concerns a Magistrate’s orders regarding property seized by police but not produced before a criminal court, including delivery to the person entitled to possession.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations for long periods and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security to ensure their production when required.

The Court also referred to Allahabad High Court decisions holding that pending confiscation proceedings do not, by themselves, bar release of a vehicle.

The Court found that the petitioner was the registered owner, that neither the State nor anyone else claimed ownership, and that continued storage in an open yard would risk damage without serving a useful purpose.

Applying Section 497 and the principles in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the Court held that the Magistrate should have considered conditional release rather than refusing custody.

The risk to the proceedings could be addressed by requiring a bank guarantee and a bond for production of the vehicle, together with an undertaking not to alter it.

The Magistrate was directed to release the vehicle forthwith to the petitioner upon his furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹25,000 and a bond to produce the vehicle when required and not to make changes or variations to it.