Court can grant interim custody of seized vehicles under stringent conditions while ensuring compliance with ongoing confiscation proceedings.

O R D E R Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner is the registered owner of a lorry bearing registration No.KL-41-C- 9973, which has been seized by the Mulavukad Police Station in Crime No.840/2025, alleging that the vehicle was used for dumping slurry in a public premises. Thus the accused has committed the offence under Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 ( BNS ) and 120(e) of the Kerala Police Act , 2011.

2. Seeking interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner filed Annexure A3 application before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam. Nonetheless, by Annexure A4 order, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application, in light of the directions passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7844/2023. Annexure A4 order is unjust and erroneous. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s vehicle is in custody since 20.12.2025. The vehicle is left exposed to the vagaries of nature. The interim custody of the vehicle has been denied to the petitioner only in view of the directions passed by this Court in W.P(C)No.7844/2023. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, the interim custody may be granted to the petitioner.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioner’s vehicle was seized, since it was used for dumping slurry in a public place. The proceedings have been initiated before the District Collector to confiscate the vehicle. Therefore, if the interim custody of the vehicle is given to the petitioner, it may hamper with the confiscation proceedings. Hence, there is no error in Annexure A4 order.

6. The petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the Investigating Officer on 20.12.2025 on the allegation that he was dumping slurry on the road near the LNG road, Puthuvype.

7. Admittedly, the vehicle is in custody for more than one month now.

8. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [ 2003(2) KLT 1089 ] and the fact that this Court has passed orders in identical matters, I am of the view that interim custody of the vehicle can be granted to the petitioner, subject to him executing a bond in favour of the Trial Court and also subject to the final confiscation proceedings.

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, and allow the Crl.M.C. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C is allowed in the following manner:-

( i) Annexure A4 order is set aside.

(ii) Annexure A3 application is allowed, subject to the condition that the petitioner executes a bond for Rs.4,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, and specifically undertaking to produce the vehicle before the Trial Court as and when directed.

(iii) The petitioner shall not transfer the vehicle to any other person without the permission of the Trial Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall also undertake that he shall not use the vehicle for the commission of any offence during the currency of this order.

(v) The Trial Court would be at liberty to modify/delete any of the conditions mentioned above.

(vi) This order granting interim custody of the vehicle, shall not hamper the competent authority initiating confiscation proceedings under the relevant law.

SD/-