Where ownership is undisputed, seized vehicles should be released on security to prevent deterioration.

The petitioner, whose ownership of a Toyota Innova was undisputed, sought interim custody of the vehicle seized by police in Crime No. 31 of 2026 for alleged offences under Sections 4(1)(B) and 14(A) of the TNP (Amendment) Act, 2024.

The Judicial Magistrate No. II, Tindivanam dismissed his application.

The petitioner challenged that order, arguing that keeping the vehicle in an open yard would cause deterioration; 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 vehicle to its undisputed registered owner was sustainable

Whether the vehicle could be released during the proceedings 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 provides for recording, photographing or videographing, and timely disposal of such property.

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

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. C.M. Mudaliar, the Supreme Court cautioned against keeping seized vehicles in police custody for long periods and endorsed prompt release against suitable bonds, guarantees, or security.

The Court also referred to Allahabad High Court decisions holding that pending confiscation proceedings do not, by themselves, bar release of a vehicle where appropriate safeguards are imposed.

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

Keeping it in an open yard would risk deterioration without serving a useful purpose.

Applying the property-custody powers under Sections 497 and 503 BNSS and the principles in Sunderbhai, the Court found that the vehicle could be returned subject to safeguards ensuring its availability and preventing alteration.

It therefore held that the Magistrate’s refusal was unsustainable.

It directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner upon his furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹25,000 and filing a bond to produce the vehicle when required and not to make any changes or variations to it.