The Kerala High Court has affirmed that the interim custody of a seized vehicle must be granted to its lawful owner to prevent irreversible deterioration, reinforcing the principle that property rights are not suspended merely due to criminal proceedings. This ruling provides critical clarity for practitioners handling asset seizure matters under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sabu K.J., is the registered owner of a commercial lorry bearing registration number KL-59-6674. The vehicle was seized by the Muvattupuzha Police Station on 02.03.2026 in connection with Crime No. 380/2026, which alleged violations of Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 120(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. The allegations centered on the use of the vehicle to dump sewage waste in public premises.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is the sole registered owner of the vehicle with no competing claims.
- The vehicle was seized on 02.03.2026 and has remained in police custody since then.
- No trial has commenced; the investigation is ongoing.
- The vehicle has been exposed to open weather conditions for over three months, risking rust, mechanical failure, and total depreciation.
- Annexure A1 confirms ownership via the Registration Certificate.
- Annexure A2 contains the FIR detailing the alleged offence.
- Annexure A3 is the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class-I, Muvattupuzha, rejecting the petitioner’s application for interim custody.
Procedural History
- 02.03.2026: Vehicle seized by Muvattupuzha Police in Crime No. 380/2026.
- 09.03.2026: Petitioner filed CMP No. 1/2026 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class-I, Muvattupuzha, seeking interim custody of the vehicle.
- 09.03.2026: Learned Magistrate dismissed the application via Annexure A3 order, holding that the vehicle was used for an illegal act and therefore not entitled to interim release.
- 08.06.2026: Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 4154 of 2026 filed before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam challenging the dismissal.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (i) setting aside of Annexure A3 order dated 09.03.2026; (ii) grant of interim custody of the vehicle KL-59-6674; and (iii) directions to the Magistrate to release the vehicle subject to appropriate conditions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) permit the grant of interim custody of a seized vehicle to its lawful owner to prevent its deterioration, even when the vehicle is alleged to have been used in the commission of an offence.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2002 10 SCC 283], arguing that the prolonged detention of a valuable asset without judicial oversight leads to irreversible depreciation. It was contended that ownership rights are not extinguished by mere seizure, and the State has a duty to preserve property pending trial. The petitioner emphasized that the vehicle was not itself contraband but merely an instrument allegedly used in an offence, and thus entitled to interim custody under equitable principles.
For the Respondent
The State did not oppose the grant of interim custody outright but maintained that the Magistrate’s order was based on the nature of the alleged offence - environmental pollution through illegal dumping. The Public Prosecutor argued that releasing the vehicle might hinder investigation, though no specific evidence of such risk was adduced.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the vehicle had been in custody for over three months with no trial scheduled, and its exposure to the elements posed a clear risk of permanent damage. It emphasized that the purpose of seizure is to preserve evidence, not to punish the owner or destroy the asset.
"In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that interim custody of the property should be given to its owner in order to prevent ruining and deterioration of the property."
The Court held that Section 528 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to exercise inherent powers to ensure justice and prevent abuse of process. It rejected the Magistrate’s reasoning that the vehicle’s alleged use in an offence automatically disqualified it from interim release, noting that such a view would lead to unjust enrichment of the State through destruction of private property.
The Court further clarified that interim custody does not equate to acquittal or waiver of confiscation rights. The State remains free to pursue confiscation proceedings, and the petitioner’s rights are subject to any final order.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Court set aside the order dated 09.03.2026 (Annexure A3). Interim custody of the vehicle KL-59-6674 was granted to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: (i) execution of a bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with two solvent sureties; (ii) no alienation, transfer, or encumbrance of the vehicle; (iii) no use of the vehicle for any offence; (iv) the Investigating Officer may photograph or video-record the vehicle; (v) the petitioner shall produce the vehicle upon demand by the Magistrate or Investigating Officer; (vi) the Magistrate may modify conditions; (vii) this order does not preclude confiscation proceedings; and (viii) the petitioner shall comply with any final confiscation order unless challenged.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Custody Is a Right, Not a Privilege
- Practitioners must now assert interim custody as a default remedy for seized vehicles, machinery, or equipment where ownership is clear and deterioration is imminent.
- Courts cannot deny interim custody solely on the ground that the property was allegedly used in a crime.
Preservation Over Punishment
- The State’s duty to preserve evidence does not extend to permitting the destruction of property.
- Delay in trial must not become a tool for de facto confiscation.
Conditions Must Be Reasonable and Tailored
- Bond amounts must be proportionate to the value of the property.
- Conditions like no alienation and mandatory production are valid; blanket bans on use must be justified by specific risk.
Documentary Ownership Is Key
- Registration certificates and title documents are decisive in establishing ownership for interim custody applications.
- Absence of rival claims strengthens the petitioner’s position significantly.
Confiscation Proceedings Remain Unaffected
- Granting interim custody does not prejudice the State’s right to initiate or complete confiscation proceedings.
- Petitioners must be prepared to comply with final confiscation orders.
