Court emphasized conditions for granting interim custody of seized vehicles, citing lack of confiscation proceedings.

O R D E R

Dated this the 21^st day of January, 2026 The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-56-5796.

2. Alleging that the vehicle was used for committing offences punishable under Section 272 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 and Section 120 (e) of the Kerala Police Act , the Nilambur Police registered Crime No.345/2025, and seized the vehicle in question.

3. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner filed an application before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nilambur (‘Trial Court’, in short). However, by the impugned Annexure A2 order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application as per principles laid down by this Court in Writ Petition No.7844/2023. Annexure A2 order is unreasonable and unjustifiable. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

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

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner’s vehicle was seized on 27.03.2025. The vehicle is in judicial custody for the last nearly one year. The vehicle is exposed to vagaries of nature, and is likely to get ruined. No useful purpose would be served in leaving the vehicle in judicial custody. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner may be granted the interim custody of his vehicle.

6. The materials on record reveal that the vehicle was seized on 27.03.2025. Although the petitioner had filed an application seeking interim custody of the vehicle, by Annexure A2 order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application on 07.07.2025.

7. Undisputedly, no confiscation proceedings have been initiated to confiscate the vehicle.

8. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2002(10) SCC 283], the Honourable Supreme Court while considering the matter of an identical matter has directed the interim custody of the vehicle to be granted to the applicant therein.

9. On a consideration of the fact that the vehicle is in judicial custody for nearly a year now and that no confiscation proceedings have been initiated, I am of the definite view that the interim custody of the vehicle is to be given to the petitioner, subject to the final orders to be passed by the jurisdictional court or by the competent authority.

Accordingly, the Crl.M.C is allowed in the following manner:-

(i) Annexure A2 order is set aside.

(ii) C.M.P.No.3428/2025 is allowed, subject to condition that the petitioner executes a bond for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum 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) The disposal of this Crl.M.C will not be a bar for the competent authority to initiate confiscation proceedings.

Sd/-