#Section 451 CrPC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a victim of theft may be granted interim custody of seized property-such as cash or vehicles-when they establish prima facie ownership, without waiting for trial conclusion. This strengthens victim rights under criminal procedure by recognizing possession as a distinct interest deserving immediate protection, not merely a post-conviction remedy.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that vehicles seized under criminal proceedings cannot be retained indefinitely in police custody. Owners are entitled to reclaim their vehicles upon furnishing surety and a supurdginama, especially when prolonged custody risks rendering the vehicle unusable. The judgment underscores the balance between investigative needs and property rights under Section 451 CrPC.

Bombay High Court holds that ownership and agricultural need outweigh Gaushala custody unless neglect is proven, clarifying discretion under PCA Rules 2017.