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

The petitioner’s scooter was seized by the respondent police in Crime No. 350 of 2026 for alleged offences under Sections 4(1)(A) and 14(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024.

The Judicial Magistrate No. I, Madurantakam, dismissed his application for return of the vehicle on 3 September 2026.

The petitioner challenged that order, asserting undisputed ownership and the risk of deterioration while the scooter remained in an open yard.

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 scooter was sustainable where the petitioner’s ownership was undisputed and continued storage risked deterioration of the vehicle

Whether the vehicle could be released to the petitioner subject to conditions securing its production and preservation

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) empowers a criminal court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending inquiry or trial and, in specified circumstances, its disposal; the provision also prescribes steps for documenting and photographing or videographing the property.

Section 503 BNSS empowers a Magistrate to make orders concerning 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 emphasized that seized vehicles should not be kept for long periods and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, or security.

The Court also referred to Allahabad High Court decisions holding that the pendency of confiscation proceedings does not, by itself, bar release of a vehicle on suitable conditions.

The Court found that the petitioner was the registered owner and that neither the State nor any other person claimed ownership of the scooter.

Keeping it in an open yard would serve no useful purpose and would expose it to deterioration.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and the powers under Sections 497 and 503 BNSS, the Court concluded that the Magistrate’s refusal to release the vehicle was not sustainable.

The State’s assertion that the vehicle was involved in the alleged offences did not outweigh the case for conditional release.

The Magistrate was directed to release the scooter to the petitioner forthwith upon his furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹20,000 and a bond undertaking to produce the vehicle whenever required and not to alter or vary it.

No order as to costs was made.