The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has clarified that the mere seizure of a vehicle under criminal proceedings does not justify indefinite custodial retention when its value is at risk of depreciation. In a significant ruling, the Court permitted interim return of the vehicle to its owner, subject to stringent conditions designed to balance public interest with property rights.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sangeetha, is the registered owner of a Taurus Lorry bearing registration number TN 51 D 0690. The vehicle was seized by the K.Puduppatti Police Station, Pudukkottai District, following the registration of Crime No.114 of 2025 under Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), alleging illegal transportation of sand. The petitioner was not named as an accused in the FIR but was the vehicle’s owner. A criminal miscellaneous petition (Crl.M.P.No.33 of 2026) was filed before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, seeking return of the vehicle. The Magistrate dismissed the petition on 20.02.2026, holding that the vehicle was evidence in a serious offence and should remain in police custody.
Key Facts
- The vehicle was seized on or about the date of registration of Crime No.114 of 2025, prior to 17.07.2025
- The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.33 of 2026 on 05.01.2026 seeking return of the vehicle
- The Magistrate dismissed the petition on 20.02.2026 without recording any evidence on the petitioner’s involvement in the offence
- The vehicle has been in police custody since seizure, exposed to open weather conditions
- The petitioner submitted that prolonged exposure to sun and rain would cause irreversible deterioration of the vehicle’s mechanical and structural components
- The vehicle is financed; the original Registration Certificate (RC) is held by the finance company
Procedural History
- Date of seizure: Not explicitly stated, but occurred prior to 17.07.2025
- 17.07.2025: First application under BNSS Section 497 filed by petitioner (Crl.M.P.No.232 of 2025) - outcome not recorded
- 05.01.2026: Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.33 of 2026 seeking return of vehicle
- 20.02.2026: District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, dismissed the petition
- 28.02.2026: Criminal Revision Petition filed before Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
- 01.04.2026: Hearing concluded and judgment delivered
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) quashing of the order dated 20.02.2026; (2) interim custody of the vehicle TN 51 D 0690; (3) directions to prevent depreciation of the vehicle’s value; and (4) assurance that the vehicle would remain available for trial proceedings.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a vehicle seized under Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS can be retained indefinitely in police custody without any finding of the owner’s culpability, and whether the Court has the power to grant interim custody subject to conditions to prevent depreciation of property.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. K.C. Maniyarasu, argued that the vehicle was not the instrument of the offence but merely the means of transport. The owner had no role in the alleged illegal activity and was not named as an accused. Prolonged exposure to weather was causing irreversible damage, diminishing the asset’s value. The petitioner offered to comply with any conditions to ensure the vehicle’s availability for trial.
For the Respondent
The State, represented by Government Advocate Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar, opposed the return of the vehicle, arguing that its return could lead to its reuse in illegal sand transportation. The vehicle was material evidence, and its custody was necessary for the integrity of the investigation and trial.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that while the State has a legitimate interest in preserving evidence, it cannot do so at the cost of irreparable loss to a third party’s property, particularly when the owner is not accused. The Court noted that the vehicle’s value was being eroded daily due to exposure to sun and rain, and no purpose would be served by maintaining it in open custody.
"Considering the fact that if the vehicle is kept in open place exposing to sun and rain, the value of the vehicle will be deteriorated and no purpose will be served in keeping the vehicle in custody..."
The Court emphasized that Section 497 of BNSS empowers the Court to order the return of seized property if it is satisfied that the property is not required for the purposes of investigation or trial. The Court held that the Magistrate’s refusal to consider the petitioner’s request for interim custody, without examining the condition of the vehicle or the owner’s non-involvement, was legally unsustainable.
The Court further held that interim custody could be granted subject to conditions that safeguard the State’s interest in the vehicle’s availability for trial and prevent its misuse.
The Verdict
The Criminal Revision Petition was allowed. The order dated 20.02.2026 of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, was set aside. The Taurus Lorry bearing registration TN 51 D 0690 is ordered to be returned to the petitioner for interim custody subject to the following conditions: (a) deposit of Rs. 50,000 as non-refundable deposit to the Adyar Cancer Institute; (b) execution of a bond of Rs. 8,00,000 with two sureties; (c) deposit of a copy of the RC Book and an affidavit confirming the original is held by the finance company; (d) submission of an undertaking not to use the vehicle for illegal purposes; (e) prohibition on alienation or alteration of the vehicle; and (f) monthly production of the vehicle before the Trial Court on the first Monday of every calendar month. The Court directed compliance within 15 days.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Custody Is a Recognized Remedy
- Practitioners may now invoke Section 497 of BNSS to seek interim return of seized vehicles or property where the owner is not accused and the property is at risk of depreciation
- Courts are expected to weigh the State’s evidentiary interest against the owner’s property rights
- Failure to consider depreciation or alternative safeguards may render an order under Section 497 legally unsustainable
Conditions Are Not Optional but Prescribed
- Courts may impose financial deposits, bonds, undertakings, and production schedules as conditions for interim custody
- These conditions are not punitive but protective - designed to ensure the property remains available for trial
- Non-compliance with any condition may trigger immediate confiscation without further hearing
Ownership vs. Involvement Must Be Distinguished
- Seizure of property does not equate to accusation of the owner
- Courts must examine whether the owner has any connection to the alleged offence before denying return
- In cases of third-party ownership (e.g., leased or financed vehicles), documentation of custody by financiers must be accepted as valid
