The Andhra Pradesh High Court has affirmed that seized vehicles cannot be held indefinitely in police custody merely because an investigation is pending. In a significant ruling, the Court emphasized that the mere pendency of a criminal case does not justify the deterioration of valuable property, and interim release subject to judicial safeguards is not only permissible but mandatory under established principles.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dudekula Chinna Madhu, is the registered owner of a tractor bearing registration number AP 21 TX 9449, which was seized on 11.07.2025 following a fatal accident. The vehicle was impounded in connection with Crime No. 92 of 2025, registered under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), for causing death by negligence while operating an uninsured vehicle. The complainant alleged that the tractor was not covered by third-party insurance at the time of the incident, as the policy was valid only from 13.08.2025 onwards.
Procedural History
- 11.07.2025: Tractor seized by Kollimigundla Police Station during investigation.
- Post-seizure: Petitioner paid Rs. 2,80,000 as compensation to the deceased’s widow.
- Magistrate’s Order: The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Banaganapalle, rejected the petitioner’s application for release, citing lack of valid insurance on the date of accident.
- 06.03.2026: Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS before the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking interim release of the vehicle.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought interim release of the tractor to prevent its depreciation due to exposure to weather, and offered to furnish a bank guarantee and comply with any conditions imposed by the Court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to direct the interim release of a seized vehicle during pendency of investigation, even when the accused is not yet charge-sheeted, and whether the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat apply to cases under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat to argue that prolonged retention of seized vehicles causes irreversible depreciation and imposes unnecessary burden on the state. The petitioner emphasized that the vehicle is not an instrument of crime but merely a means of transport, and that compensation had already been paid. The petitioner offered to furnish a bank guarantee and deposit the RC to ensure availability for trial.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor opposed release on the ground that the investigation was still ongoing and that the vehicle’s insurance status was a material fact under Section 106(1) BNS. It was contended that releasing the vehicle could prejudice the investigation and hinder the possibility of confiscation if found liable under the statute.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the Supreme Court’s directives in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, particularly paragraphs 7 and 17, which emphasize that seized vehicles should not remain in police custody indefinitely. The Court noted that the rationale behind these guidelines - preventing depreciation, reducing custodial burden, and preserving evidentiary value through proper panchnama - is equally applicable under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
"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."
The Court rejected the argument that pending investigation justifies indefinite retention. It held that the interest of justice demands that valuable property not be allowed to deteriorate while awaiting trial. The Court further clarified that the absence of valid insurance at the time of the incident does not alter the principle that interim custody is a procedural safeguard, not a substantive determination of guilt.
The Court also affirmed that the High Court’s powers under Section 482 CrPC remain intact even after the enactment of BNSS, as the latter does not expressly repeal or limit the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that interim custody of seized vehicles is permissible during investigation, provided appropriate conditions are imposed. The tractor was ordered released subject to a bank guarantee, non-alienation clause, and deposit of the Registration Certificate.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Custody Is a Right, Not a Privilege
- Practitioners must now routinely move for interim release of seized vehicles under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS, even before charge-sheeting.
- Courts cannot deny such applications solely on the ground that investigation is pending.
- Compensation paid to victims does not preclude the right to seek return of property.
Documentation Overcomes Insurance Defects
- The absence of valid insurance at the time of incident is a substantive issue for trial, not a bar to interim custody.
- Petitioners should prepare and submit panchnamas, photographs, and valuation reports to demonstrate the risk of depreciation.
- Courts may direct Motor Vehicles Authorities to issue temporary permits for road use during pendency.
Judicial Safeguards Are Non-Negotiable
- Bank guarantees, RC deposits, and non-alienation undertakings are mandatory conditions.
- The Court retains power to order confiscation later if evidence warrants it.
- Any order granting interim custody must explicitly preserve the state’s right to proceed with confiscation proceedings.
