#seized vehicle

The Kerala High Court ruled that the registered owner of a seized vehicle must be granted interim custody to prevent irreversible damage from exposure to weather, affirming that property preservation is a legal duty under BNSS Section 528, irrespective of the alleged offense. This sets a critical precedent for owners of commercial assets caught in prolonged criminal investigations.

Uttarakhand High Court rules that a vehicle seized in a narcotic case must be released if no prima facie evidence links it to the offence. The court mandated release on a ₹50,000 bond, emphasizing that mere presence at the scene or registration in another jurisdiction does not justify prolonged detention, reinforcing proportionality in property seizures under criminal law.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered the release of a seized truck to its lawful owner pending trial, recognizing that prolonged police custody of heavy machinery risks irreversible depreciation. This ruling affirms that property preservation under Section 528 BNSS extends beyond mere ownership to include economic value protection, especially where fraud undermines title and trial delays are inevitable.

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.

Madras High Court rules that Special Courts cannot summarily reject property return applications under the NDPS Act without hearing. Innocent owners, not accused or complicit, must be granted interim custody of seized vehicles if they lack knowledge of the offence, reinforcing natural justice principles.

Uttarakhand High Court mandates interim release of seized vehicles under judicial safeguards if the owner is not chargesheeted, reinforcing the Supreme Court's ruling in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai that prolonged detention without trial causes undue hardship and depreciation. The decision underscores the need for expeditious judicial oversight to prevent arbitrary deprivation of property rights under criminal procedure.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that prolonged retention of seized vehicles without cause violates justice principles, even under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Courts must balance investigative needs with property rights, ensuring seized assets are not rendered worthless during pendency. The judgment reinforces the Supreme Court's guidelines in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, mandating interim custody where depreciation is imminent.

Chhattisgarh High Court holds that seized vehicles must be released on supurdnama if ownership is established and no identification purpose remains, citing Supreme Court precedents.

Kerala High Court sets aside onerous bank guarantee condition for interim custody of seized tanker lorry, affirming Supreme Court's directive to prevent asset depreciation.