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

On 31 July 2026, police seized the petitioner’s KTM 200 motorcycle, registration No. AP 03 BX 7256, after allegedly finding 20 grams of ganja on it. A case was registered in Crime No. 114 of 2026 under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act and Section 123 of the BNS.

The petitioner sought return of the motorcycle, asserting that he was its registered owner and that it was being kept in an open yard; the Judicial Magistrate dismissed his application on 11 September 2026.

The petitioner challenged that dismissal in revision.

1. Whether the Magistrate’s refusal to release the seized motorcycle warranted interference in revision, given the petitioner’s undisputed ownership and the risk of deterioration while it remained in an open yard.

2. Whether the motorcycle could be released to the petitioner subject to conditions securing its production when required by the court.

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 provides for documentation, photography or videography, and timely disposal or delivery of property.

Section 503 BNSS permits a Magistrate to order the disposal of property seized by police but not produced before a criminal court, or its delivery to the person entitled to possession, subject to appropriate conditions.

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Court reiterated that seized vehicles should not be left for extended periods in police or court custody and may be released against suitable bonds, guarantees, or security to ensure their return 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 considered the petitioner’s ownership undisputed and noted that neither the State nor another person claimed the motorcycle.

Keeping it in an open yard would risk damage and serve no useful purpose, whereas a bank guarantee and an undertaking to produce the vehicle and not alter it would protect the proceedings.

Applying the property-custody principles under Sections 497 and 503 BNSS and the guidance in Sunderbhai, the Court found the Magistrate’s refusal unsustainable.

It directed release of the motorcycle to the petitioner forthwith upon his furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹20,000 and a bond undertaking to produce the vehicle when required and not to make any changes or variations to it.