The Rajasthan High Court has directed the release of a seized truck on Supurdaginama, reinforcing the Supreme Court’s long-standing principle that seized vehicles must not be allowed to deteriorate in police custody. The order clarifies that ownership documentation and absence of competing claims are sufficient grounds for release, provided adequate judicial safeguards are in place.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Rajasthan High Court quashed the lower court’s order denying release of a seized truck and directed its release on Supurdaginama, subject to a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each. The court held that prolonged detention of vehicles in police custody, without necessity, violates the principle established in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, which prohibits the depreciation of seized property.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, acting through a power of attorney holder, sought the release of Truck No. RJ-19-GA-3056, which had been seized by authorities during a criminal investigation. The petitioner holds the Registration Certificate of the vehicle and is the only party claiming ownership or interest in its release. No third party has asserted any claim over the vehicle.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, had rejected the application for release on Supurdaginama without assigning detailed reasons, merely citing procedural caution. The petitioner challenged this order before the Rajasthan High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which permits the court to direct the release of seized property under certain conditions.
The petitioner emphasized that the vehicle had been in police custody for over a year, risking mechanical degradation and financial loss. No evidence suggested the vehicle was instrumental in the commission of a heinous offence or that its retention was essential for investigation.
The Legal Issue
Can a vehicle be denied release on Supurdaginama solely on the ground of procedural caution, when the owner holds valid registration, no competing claims exist, and prolonged custody risks depreciation, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283, which held that seized vehicles must not be left to rust in police stations, as this amounts to unnecessary deprivation of property. The counsel argued that the petitioner’s possession of the Registration Certificate establishes lawful ownership, and the absence of any other claimant removes any risk of wrongful release. Section 528 BNSS empowers courts to release seized property upon sufficient assurance of its production at trial.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor did not dispute the legal principle cited but offered no substantive counter-argument. He neither challenged the applicability of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai nor presented any factual basis for retaining the vehicle beyond speculative concerns about trial attendance. His opposition was largely procedural, without citing any precedent or statutory provision justifying continued detention.
The Court's Analysis
The court began by affirming that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai is not merely persuasive but binding on all subordinate courts. The judgment emphasized that vehicles are movable property susceptible to rapid depreciation, and their indefinite detention serves no legitimate investigative purpose unless the vehicle itself is an essential piece of evidence.
"A vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station, as the same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful."
The court noted that the lower court had failed to apply this principle, instead relying on generic caution without evaluating the specific circumstances. The petitioner’s possession of the Registration Certificate, coupled with the absence of any rival claim, satisfied the threshold for release under Section 528 BNSS.
The court further held that the conditions imposed - personal bond, sureties, and photographic documentation - are sufficient to ensure the vehicle’s availability during trial. The trial court retains discretion to impose additional conditions, but cannot deny release on the basis of mere suspicion or administrative inertia.
The judgment underscores that the right to property under Article 300A, though not a fundamental right, still demands protection against arbitrary deprivation. Indefinite retention of a vehicle without justification constitutes such deprivation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment provides clear guidance for practitioners handling applications for release of seized vehicles under Section 528 BNSS. It establishes that valid registration and absence of competing claims are prima facie grounds for release, and courts must apply the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai principle as a default rule. Denial of release must now be justified with specific, evidence-based reasoning - not procedural hesitation.
Future applications should include documentary proof of ownership, evidence of depreciation risk, and proposed conditions for trial attendance. Prosecutors must now articulate concrete reasons for retention, such as the vehicle being a direct instrument of crime or containing forensic evidence. This ruling curbs arbitrary detention of property and aligns criminal procedure with constitutional principles of proportionality and minimal deprivation.
The decision does not extend to vehicles used in serious offences like terrorism or trafficking, where the nature of the crime may justify continued custody. However, for routine offences involving transport, the burden now lies squarely on the prosecution to justify retention.
