The Andhra Pradesh High Court has permitted interim custody of a seized vehicle under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (BNSS) Section 528, despite the pendency of investigation into alleged offences under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Court balanced the need for preserving evidence with the risk of vehicle damage due to prolonged seizure, directing release subject to stringent conditions to ensure compliance with trial proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The petitioner, S Lakshmi, is the registered owner of an Eicher Lorry bearing registration No. AP-39-TN-3141. The vehicle was seized by the Hindupur Rural Police Station on 17.05.2026 in connection with Crime No. 42 of 2026, registered for offences punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is the owner of the subject vehicle, which is currently in police custody.
- The petitioner contended that prolonged exposure to sun and air could damage the vehicle, necessitating its interim release.
- The petitioner offered to abide by conditions imposed by the Court, including execution of a self-bond and undertaking not to alienate or alter the vehicle.
- The offence alleged involves the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the truth of allegations is yet to be determined during investigation and trial.
Procedural History
- 17.05.2026: Vehicle seized by Hindupur Rural Police Station in connection with Crime No. 42 of 2026.
- IA No. 1 of 2026: Filed under Section 482 CrPC and 528 BNSS for dispensation of certified copy of FIR.
- 21.07.2026: Present Criminal Petition (No. 4999 of 2026) filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking interim custody of the vehicle.
The Parties' Positions
- Petitioner's Stand: The petitioner, as the registered owner, sought interim custody of the vehicle, citing the risk of damage due to prolonged seizure. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Naganath v. State of Andhra Pradesh.
- State's Stand: The State opposed the petition, citing pending investigation and the need to preserve evidence.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought directions for the release of the vehicle (Eicher Lorry No. AP-39-TN-3141) seized in connection with Crime No. 42 of 2026, subject to conditions ensuring its availability for trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court could grant interim custody of a seized vehicle under Section 528 BNSS despite the pendency of investigation into alleged offences under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and if so, under what conditions.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat to argue that the vehicle could be released on conditions to prevent damage.
- The petitioner also cited a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Naganath v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that vehicles could be released without payment of penalty or seigniorage fee at the time of interception.
- The petitioner offered to execute a self-bond for the vehicle's assessed value, provide sureties, and undertake not to alienate or alter the vehicle.
For the Respondent
- The State opposed the petition, citing the pendency of investigation and the need to preserve evidence.
- The State contended that the truth of the allegations could only be determined during the course of investigation and trial.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the competing interests at stake: the need to preserve evidence during investigation and the risk of damage to the vehicle due to prolonged seizure. The Court noted that the offence alleged was punishable under Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the truth of the allegations was yet to be determined.
The Court observed that if the vehicle was exposed to sun or air while unused in police custody, there was a significant risk of damage. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the vehicle could be ordered for interim custody, subject to conditions to ensure its availability for trial.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and the Division Bench judgment in Naganath v. State of Andhra Pradesh to hold that vehicles could be released on conditions, even during pending investigation.
"Having regard to the usage of the word, „driver‟ or „person-in-charge of the vehicle‟, the Government Pleader tried to contend that even for release of the vehicle, the owner or the person claiming release of the vehicle has to pay penalty equal to the market value of the mineral along with seigniorage fee prevalent at that time. On a reading of the above Rule, there is nothing to indicate, the vehicle cannot be released, unless the penalty and seigniorage fee is paid."
The Court directed the release of the vehicle subject to stringent conditions to ensure compliance with trial proceedings.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the Criminal Petition No. 4999 of 2026 and directed the release of the vehicle (Eicher Lorry No. AP-39-TN-3141) subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner shall produce the original Registration Certificate (R.C.) and execute a self-bond for the assessed value of the vehicle, with two sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate.
- The petitioner shall execute an undertaking not to alienate the vehicle or transfer its ownership or change any physical features of the vehicle.
- The petitioner shall execute an undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when directed by the trial Court until the case is disposed of.
The Court clarified that the interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Custody Is Not Absolute
The judgment clarifies that interim custody under BNSS Section 528 is not an absolute right but is subject to conditions ensuring the vehicle's availability for trial. Courts must balance the risk of damage to the vehicle with the need to preserve evidence.
Conditions Must Be Stringent and Specific
- Courts must impose conditions such as execution of self-bonds, sureties, and undertakings to prevent alienation or alteration of the vehicle.
- The conditions must be tailored to the facts of the case, ensuring compliance with trial proceedings.
Precedents Provide Guidance
- The judgment reaffirms the principles laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and Naganath v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which allow for the release of vehicles on conditions during pending investigations.
- Practitioners should rely on these precedents to argue for interim custody in similar cases, emphasizing the risk of damage and the petitioner's willingness to abide by conditions.
Proactive Measures Are Essential
- Petitioners seeking interim custody must proactively offer conditions to mitigate the risk of damage and ensure compliance with trial proceedings.
- Courts are likely to impose stringent conditions, and practitioners must be prepared to address these requirements comprehensively.
