Vehicle confiscation under cattle protection laws requires a conviction and cannot be finalized during trial.

The petitioner, Phoolchand Yadav, is the registered owner of a Pickup Vehicle (M.P.20 ZN 6172) seized under Crime No. 172/2025 by Police Station Bandol for alleged violations of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, M.P. Krishak Parikshan Adhiniyam, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The petitioner’s application for interim custody (Supurdnama) was rejected by the Trial Court on April 2, 2025, on the grounds that confiscation proceedings were pending before the Collector.

A subsequent revision petition (No. 22/2025) was dismissed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni, on January 17, 2026, affirming the lower court's refusal to release the vehicle.

The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, citing financial hardship and the deterioration of the vehicle.

The Court applied the Full Bench ruling in Ramlal Jharia v. State of M.P. (WP No. 11356/2024), which established that under the "Cow Progeny Act," the Collector may initiate confiscation proceedings but cannot pass a final order until a conviction is recorded by a Criminal Court.

It further relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283, which mandates that seized vehicles should be released on appropriate terms to prevent deterioration from exposure to weather and lack of use.

The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The Court observed that the lower courts' primary justification for refusing the release—the pendency of confiscation proceedings before the Collector—was legally flawed in light of the Ramlal Jharia decision.

Since the Collector lacks the power to finalize confiscation until the conclusion of the trial, the vehicle's continued detention in police custody serves no legitimate purpose.

Applying the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai doctrine, the Court reasoned that since the petitioner’s ownership was undisputed (Annexure P/1), the vehicle should be released to prevent irreparable financial loss and physical decay.

The Court balanced the interests of justice by determining that the prosecution's concerns regarding the availability of the vehicle could be mitigated through "stringent conditions" rather than continued seizure.

The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the orders dated April 2, 2025, and January 17, 2026, directing release subject to a personal bond of Rs. 4,00,000, one solvent surety of the same amount, and undertakings not to alienate the vehicle, use it for unlawful activities, or alter its condition during the trial.