Seized vehicles should be released to undisputed owners on security rather than left to deteriorate.

The petitioner sought release of his motorcycle, registration No. TN-88-M-0320, seized in Crime No. 154 of 2026 for an alleged offence under Section 4(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024.

The Judicial Magistrate, Senthamangalam, dismissed his release application on 7 September 2026; the petitioner challenged that order in revision.

He asserted that he was the registered owner, that keeping the vehicle in an open yard would cause deterioration, and that he would comply with conditions imposed for its release.

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

The judgment records the seizure date as 9 October 2026, which is later than the Magistrate’s order dated 7 September 2026.

1. Whether the Magistrate’s refusal to release the petitioner’s vehicle was sustainable where the petitioner’s ownership was undisputed and continued storage risked deterioration of the vehicle

2. Whether the vehicle could be released subject to conditions securing its production and preservation for the proceedings

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) empowers a criminal court to make appropriate orders for custody of property pending inquiry or trial and, where applicable, its disposal; the provision also requires preparation of a property statement and photographs or videography, followed by an order concerning the property within the prescribed period.

Section 503 BNSS authorises a Magistrate, when seized property is reported but not produced before a criminal court, to order its disposal or delivery to the person entitled to possession, subject to conditions.

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Court emphasised that seized vehicles should not be left in prolonged storage and may be released against appropriate bond, guarantee, or security.

It 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 safeguards.

The Court found that the petitioner’s registered ownership was undisputed and that neither the State nor another person claimed ownership of the vehicle.

In its view, leaving the vehicle in an open yard served no useful purpose and risked deterioration, while the Magistrate had not properly exercised the powers available under Section 497 BNSS.

Applying Sunderbhai and the cited vehicle-release decisions, the Court concluded that the interests of the proceedings could be protected through conditions requiring a bank guarantee, a bond to produce the vehicle when required, and a prohibition on alterations.

There was no order as to costs.