Vehicle Cannot Be Released on Supurdnama in the Absence of a Valid Legal Seizure

The Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 03-06-2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Kota, which rejected his application for the release of a tractor (Reg. No. CG-10-D-8162) on Supurdnama

The Petitioner claimed he purchased the vehicle from Respondent No. 4 via an agreement dated 24-11-2025

While an FIR (Crime No. 32/2026) was registered regarding an accident involving a different tractor (Reg. No. CG-10-D-8265), the Petitioner alleged his vehicle was being detained by the Kota Police despite not being involved in the crime or officially seized in the case

The State contended that since the vehicle in question was never seized in connection with the FIR, it could not be released on Supurdnama

1. Whether the court can direct the release of a vehicle on Supurdnama when the said vehicle has not been officially seized by the police in connection with the criminal offense

2. Whether the Petitioner has a legal standing to seek interim custody when the vehicle remains registered in the name of a third party

The core legal rule dictates that the power of a Magistrate to release property on Supurdnama is contingent upon the property being produced before the Court or being "seized" in connection with an offense

The court considered the Motor Vehicles Act regarding the validity of ownership, noting that registration in the name of the claimant is a material factor for interim custody

The Court reasoned that for a prayer for Supurdnama (interim custody) to be maintainable, the property must first be subject to a formal seizure in a criminal case.

Upon perusal of the FIR and the case diary, the Court found that the accident involved Tractor No. CG-10-D-8265, whereas the Petitioner sought the release of Tractor No. CG-10-D-8162. Since the latter was never seized in connection with Crime No. 32/2026, the Court held that the question of its release through a judicial order of Supurdnama does not arise

Additionally, the Court observed that the Petitioner’s claim was weakened by the fact that the vehicle was still registered in the name of Respondent No. 4 (Sanjeey Madliyar) and not the Petitioner

The Court found the Petitioner's claim unsustainable as the vehicle was not involved in the accident cited in the FIR and the Petitioner was not the registered owner. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit