Seized vehicles should be released on interim custody subject to appropriate safeguards.

The petitioner sought interim custody of two vehicles seized during the investigation of Crime No. 265/2023 and Crime No. 249/2025.

The petitioner had purchased vehicle KA-03-NL-0081 in 2021; the other vehicle, KA-01-NG-1818, was also seized from his premises.

His application under Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was rejected by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and his criminal revision was dismissed by the Sessions Court.

The petitioner challenged those orders and the seizure mahazars, submitting that keeping the vehicles at the police station served no useful purpose.

The State opposed the application but acknowledged that continued stationing of the vehicles was of no use to either side.

Whether the petitioner should be granted interim custody of the seized vehicles while the investigation or proceedings remain pending.

Whether the Magistrate’s and Sessions Court’s orders rejecting interim custody should be set aside.

Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS govern orders concerning the custody and disposal of property and property seized by police.

The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, which requires courts to deal promptly with seized property and permits its interim release after preparation of a proper panchnama, photographs, a bond and appropriate security, so that the property need not remain unused in police custody.

It also referred to K.W. Ganapathy v. State of Karnataka, recognising that property need not be kept intact where its evidentiary features can be recorded and its value secured through appropriate safeguards.

It also referred to K.Y. Gurupasad v. State of Karnataka as an analogous case.

The Court considered that both vehicles were being kept at the police station, a circumstance that the State itself accepted was of no practical use to either party.

Finding no rival claim to the vehicles, the Court concluded that their continued retention was unwarranted and that the interests of the proceedings could be protected through the safeguards contemplated in Sunderbhai.

It therefore set aside the orders refusing interim custody and directed the concerned court to impose appropriate conditions before releasing the vehicles.

The Magistrate’s order dated 27 March 2026 and the Sessions Court’s order dated 8 May 2026 were quashed; the petitioner’s application for interim custody was allowed; and the concerned court was directed to impose conditions consistent with Sunderbhai before releasing the vehicles.

The operative order does not separately grant the prayers to quash the seizure mahazars.