The court emphasized the importance of stringent conditions for interim custody due to the petitioner's history of misuse.

O R D E R Dated this the 3^rd day of February,2026 The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL71/A/4301, which is alleged to be involved in Crime No.737/2025 registered by the Kannapuram Police Station, Kannur, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 and Section 120 (e) of the Kerala Police Act ,2011, for allegedly dumping sewage waste in a thickly populated area.

2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner had filed an application before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kannur (Trial Court) under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023. However, the Trial Court considering the fact that the petitioner’s vehicle has been repeatedly used for committing a similar offence, dismissed the application. Annexure A3 order is ex-facie erroneous and unreasonable. The Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the petitioner’s vehicle is lying exposed to the vagaries of nature since 04.09.2025, which is five months now. The income from the vehicle is the only source of the petitioner’s livelihood. If the interim custody of the vehicle is not given to the petitioner, it will cause severe hardship and pecuniary loss to the petitioner. Hence, Annexure A3 order may be set aside.

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

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contentions stated in the Crl.M.C.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Crl.M.C. She submits that on an earlier occasion the petitioner’s vehicle was used to commit a similar offence.

By order in Crl.M.C No.1796/2025, the petitioner was granted interim custody of the vehicle. Notwithstanding the specific condition in the said order, that the petitioner shall not use the vehicle to commit a similar offence, the petitioner has violated the conditions by committing a similar offence. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by imposing any stringent condition on the petitioner, as he would violate the same. Moreover, in view of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , the petitioner’s vehicle is liable to be confiscated. Hence, the Crl. M.C may be dismissed.

6. The petitioner's vehicle was seized on 04.09.2025 for allegedly being used to dump sewage waste on a public road.

7. The petitioner filed an application for interim custody of the vehicle which was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that he had flouted the condition in the order in Crl.M.C No.1796/2025.

8. A reading of Annexure A3 order reveals that the petitioner’s vehicle was used for committing a similar offence on an earlier occasion. By the order in Crl.M.C.No.1796/2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner was granted interim custody of the vehicle, subject to condition that he should not dump sewage waste in a public premises. It is subsequent to the said order, the petitioner has allegedly used the vehicle to commit a similar offence.

9. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s vehicle has been illegally seized by the Investigating officer to wreak vengeance on the petitioner, I am not impressed by the said submission. Nonetheless, considering the fact that the vehicle is in judicial custody for the last five months and is lying exposed to the vagaries of nature, with no use to anyone, I am of view that the interim custody of the vehicle can be granted to the petitioner, subject to stringent conditions.

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.