The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified a critical boundary in criminal procedure: the mere registration of a vehicle in an accused person’s name does not justify its confiscation when the owner is not the driver or accused. This ruling reinforces the principle that penal consequences must be tied to individual culpability, not mere ownership.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Seema Jat, is the registered owner of a Maruti Suzuki Brezza Smart Hybrid (Registration No. MP-09-ZD-0605) that was involved in a fatal road accident on 18 October 2024. The vehicle was being driven by Adarsh Gujar, a friend to whom it had been lent. Gujar was arrested and remains in judicial custody. Seema Jat was neither present at the time of the incident nor charged with any offence. Despite this, the trial court ordered the confiscation of the vehicle under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, citing its use in the commission of an offence.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
18 October 2024: Vehicle seized by police under BNSS provisions
18 February 2025: Trial Court rejected petitioner’s application for release of vehicle under Section 497-503 BNSS
17 September 2025: First petition before the High Court dismissed, but with direction to examine complainant within three months
29 January 2026: Second petition filed after complainant’s examination, seeking release of vehicle
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the release of her vehicle on grounds that she was not the driver, had no knowledge of the reckless driving, and had produced valid registration, insurance, and Aadhaar documents proving lawful ownership.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 503 of the BNSS, 2023 permits confiscation of a vehicle solely on the basis of its registration in the name of a person who is not accused of the offence, when the actual driver is in custody and the owner has no involvement in the commission of the crime.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel argued that Section 503 BNSS authorizes confiscation only against persons who are accused or found guilty of the offence. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Ramlal Jhariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, counsel emphasized that confiscation is a penal consequence requiring personal culpability. The petitioner, as a non-accused owner, could not be subjected to such a measure. She further submitted that the vehicle was insured and legally registered, and its retention served no investigative purpose.
For the Respondent/State
The State opposed the release, contending that the vehicle was used in the commission of a heinous offence and that its confiscation was a deterrent measure under Section 503 BNSS. It argued that the absence of the case diary did not preclude confiscation, and that ownership alone created sufficient nexus for seizure.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language and intent of Section 503 BNSS, noting that it permits confiscation only of property "used in the commission of an offence" by the accused. The Court held that the statute does not extend to innocent owners who have no knowledge or involvement in the unlawful act. The Full Bench decision in Ramlal Jhariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh was binding and explicitly held that "confiscation of a vehicle during pendency of trial, where the owner is not an accused, is bad in law and violates the principle of personal liability under Article 21 of the Constitution."
"The power to confiscate vests exclusively with the criminal court upon conviction, and not as a pre-trial punitive measure against non-accused persons."
The Court further observed that the State’s reliance on the vehicle’s mere registration was legally unsustainable. Ownership, without participation or knowledge, cannot equate to liability. The Court also noted that the complainant had been examined, removing any procedural justification for continued detention of the vehicle.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that Section 503 BNSS cannot be invoked to confiscate a vehicle from a non-accused owner during trial. The impugned order was quashed, and the State was directed to release the vehicle upon furnishing adequate surety to the trial court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Confiscation Requires Accused Status
Practitioners must challenge pre-trial confiscation of vehicles where the owner is not named as an accused
Merely being the registered owner is insufficient grounds for seizure under Section 503 BNSS
Courts must distinguish between driver liability and owner liability in road accident cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
The absence of a case diary cannot justify unlawful detention of property
Petitioners should immediately file applications under Section 497 BNSS for release upon proof of non-involvement
Courts must apply the Ramlal Jhariya precedent uniformly across districts
Ownership Documentation Is Definitive
Valid registration, insurance, and identity documents must be accepted as prima facie proof of lawful possession
Police and trial courts cannot demand additional proof beyond statutory documentation unless fraud is alleged
