The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that seized vehicles involved in prolonged criminal proceedings must not be left exposed to environmental damage when the rightful owner seeks interim custody. In a significant ruling, the Court ordered the release of a truck on supurdginama, balancing the interests of justice with the preservation of property value.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Asha Yadav, is the widow of the registered owner of a Tata Motors LPT-3118 truck bearing registration number MP-65-GA-0925. After her husband’s death, the accused, Sonu Yadav and Deep Chand Yadav, allegedly impersonated the deceased and fraudulently transferred ownership of the vehicle to themselves. Upon discovering the fraudulent transfer, Asha Yadav filed a written complaint with the Police Station City Kotwali, Anuppur. Crime No. 100/2024 was registered against the accused persons. The vehicle was seized by the police as evidence in the investigation.
Key Facts
- The vehicle was originally registered in the name of Asha Yadav’s deceased husband
- A copy of the original registration certificate was submitted to the Court
- The vehicle is classified as machinery made of iron and is susceptible to rust and structural damage if stored outdoors
- The accused have not complied with a compromise agreement filed before the Trial Court, as no payment has been made to the applicant
- The applicant has no alternative means of transport or income derived from the vehicle
- The vehicle’s value is at risk of significant depreciation due to prolonged storage at the police station
Procedural History
- 09.05.2024: Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anuppur, dismissed the applicant’s application under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC seeking interim custody of the vehicle
- 19.12.2025: Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Anuppur, affirmed the Magistrate’s order in Criminal Revision No. 30/2025
- 16.04.2026: Writ petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (equivalent to Section 482 of CrPC, 1973) filed before the High Court at Jabalpur
Relief Sought
The applicant sought interim custody of the seized truck on supurdginama, arguing that prolonged storage would cause irreversible damage and depreciation. She requested the Court to direct the release of the vehicle subject to appropriate safeguards.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a court may grant interim custody of a seized vehicle to its lawful owner pending trial, where the vehicle is at risk of deterioration and the owner has established prima facie title, despite the pendency of criminal proceedings.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for Asha Yadav relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat to argue that seized vehicles, particularly those susceptible to environmental damage, should not be kept indefinitely at police stations. He emphasized that the applicant is the lawful owner, the accused have breached a compromise, and the vehicle’s value is being eroded daily due to exposure to sun and rain. He submitted that release on supurdginama with adequate surety and conditions would not prejudice the investigation.
For the Respondent/State
The State counsel opposed the prayer, contending that the vehicle is material evidence in a criminal case involving fraud and impersonation, and its release could compromise the trial. No specific counter-argument was advanced regarding the risk of damage or the precedent cited.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the seized property and the practical consequences of its prolonged detention. It noted that the vehicle is not a perishable item but is made of iron and exposed to the elements, making it vulnerable to rust and mechanical degradation. The Court observed that the applicant has established a clear chain of title through the registration certificate and that the accused have not fulfilled their obligations under a compromise.
"In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles."
The Court held that the Supreme Court’s directive in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai is directly applicable. The principle that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate while trials drag on is not discretionary but a matter of judicial prudence. The lower courts erred in denying relief without considering the risk of depreciation or the applicant’s lawful ownership.
The Court further emphasized that granting interim custody does not equate to relinquishing control over the evidence. It can be secured through conditions such as surety, photographic documentation, and restrictions on use or transfer.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The High Court quashed the orders dated 09.05.2024 and 19.12.2025. Interim custody of the seized truck bearing registration number MP-65-GA-0925 (Model: Tata Motors LPT-3118) is granted to Asha Yadav on supurdginama subject to the following conditions: (i) Furnishing a solvent surety of Rs. 20,00,000 to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; (ii) Obtaining and submitting photographs of the vehicle’s registration and chassis numbers, taken in the presence of a court-deputed officer; (iii) Undertaking not to transfer ownership, lease, or alter the vehicle in any way that renders it unidentifiable; and (iv) Undertaking not to use the vehicle in any anti-social activity. The order is effective immediately and the Trial Court is directed to ensure compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Custody Is a Right, Not a Privilege
- Practitioners may now assert interim custody of seized vehicles as a matter of right where ownership is established and the property is at risk of depreciation
- Courts must proactively consider environmental and economic factors before denying release
- Denial without reasoning on deterioration constitutes a failure to apply Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai
Supurdginama Conditions Are Standard, Not Exceptional
- Surety of 100% of estimated market value is now a recognized benchmark
- Photographic documentation of chassis and registration numbers is mandatory for identification
- Restrictions on transfer and modification are non-negotiable safeguards
- Violation of conditions renders the release void and may attract contempt
Delay in Trial Does Not Justify Property Destruction
- The pendency of trial cannot be used to justify the destruction of evidence
- Courts must balance evidentiary needs with preservation of property value
- This ruling applies equally to commercial vehicles, machinery, and other durable seized assets
