The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that the prolonged retention of seized vehicles by police under the NDPS Act, without judicial oversight, violates the owner’s property rights and leads to unnecessary depreciation. This ruling reinforces the principle that interim custody of seized assets must be balanced against constitutional and statutory obligations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Chand Miya, is the registered owner of a Hero HF Deluxe motorcycle bearing registration MP.08 M.S. 5509, which was seized by police in connection with Crime No. 20/2020 under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act. He filed an application under Section 451 and 457 of the CrPC seeking interim custody of the vehicle, arguing that its prolonged storage at the police station would cause irreversible damage and financial loss.
Procedural History
- 2020: Vehicle seized during investigation under NDPS Act
- April 8, 2021: Special Judge (NDPS), Ashoknagar, rejected the petitioner’s application for interim custody
- 2026: Petitioner filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 593 of 2026 under Section 528 of BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 of CrPC) before the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking quashing of the rejection order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought release of the motorcycle on interim custody, subject to conditions such as furnishing a bond and undertaking to produce the vehicle during trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 451 and 457 of the CrPC permit a trial court to deny interim custody of a seized vehicle solely on speculative grounds that it may be used again in crime, without considering the owner’s property rights or the risk of depreciation.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283, arguing that the Supreme Court has consistently held that seized vehicles should not be kept indefinitely at police stations. The Court in that case emphasized that magistrates must pass immediate orders for release on bond or security, ensuring the asset’s preservation and the owner’s right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution.
For the Respondent/State
The State opposed the petition, contending that the vehicle was integral to the NDPS case and its release could lead to its reuse in criminal activity. No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited to justify indefinite retention.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the reasoning of the Special Judge, who denied interim custody on the ground that the vehicle might be "again indulged in crime." The Court found this reasoning legally unsustainable. It noted that Section 451 CrPC explicitly empowers courts to order the release of seized property on execution of a bond, and Section 457 CrPC mandates that such property be preserved for trial purposes - not indefinitely detained.
"Whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep seized vehicle at Police Stations for long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking bond and guarantee as well as security for return of said vehicle, if required at any point of time."
The Court emphasized that the mere possibility of misuse cannot override the owner’s right to protect his property. Prolonged detention leads to mechanical deterioration, loss of market value, and violates the principle of proportionality. The Court further held that conditions such as a bond, undertaking to produce the vehicle, and prohibition on alienation are sufficient safeguards.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that Section 451 and 457 CrPC require magistrates to grant interim custody of seized vehicles on reasonable conditions, and that speculative fears of reuse cannot justify indefinite retention. The motorcycle was ordered released subject to specified conditions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Custody Is the Rule, Not the Exception
- Practitioners must now routinely apply for release of seized vehicles under Section 451 CrPC in NDPS and other cases
- Courts cannot deny release without applying the triple test: likelihood of reuse, value depreciation, and adequacy of conditions
- Denial must be supported by concrete evidence, not conjecture
Conditions Are Sufficient Safeguards
- Bond and surety of equivalent value are constitutionally adequate
- Undertakings to produce the vehicle and not alter it are enforceable
- Photographing the vehicle before release creates a verifiable record for trial
Depreciation Is a Legal Harm
- Loss in value due to storage is now recognized as a cognizable injury under property law
- Courts must consider economic impact when weighing retention against release
- This principle extends beyond vehicles to seized machinery, electronics, and other perishable assets
