Maintaining interim custody of seized vehicles to prevent deterioration while ensuring legal compliance.

ORDER

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is the registered owner of a Tanker Lorry bearing Registration No.KL 29C 5236. Alleging that the vehicle was used for commission of the offences under Sections 270 and 279 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 219S and 219 H of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994, Section 120 (e) of the Kerala Police Act and Sections 183 and 132(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, the petitioner’s vehicle was seized by Balussery Police Station in Crime No.121/2024 .

2. Seeking interim custody of the vehicle the petitioner had filed an application before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Permabra, (‘Trial Court’, in short). By Annexure-V order, the learned Magistrate allowed the application, but subject to conditions. As per Condition No.(iii), the petitioner has been directed to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.2,00,000/-. Condition No.

(iii) is onerous and unjustifiable. Therefore, Condition No.

(iii) in Annexure-V 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 submits that Condition No.(iii) in Annexure-V order is unjustifiable. The petitioner’s vehicle is lying exposed to vagaries of nature since 03.02.2024, which is nearly two years. The petitioner’s vehicle is likely to get ruined and rusted. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2002(10) SCC 283], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically directed that the court should always grant interim custody of the vehicles to its owners subject to conditions in order to avoid the vehicles getting ruined. The above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. Hence, the Crl.M.C. may be allowed.

5. The petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the Investigating Officer on 03.02.2024 on the allegation that it was used for dumping waste in the public premises.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner’s vehicle is in custody for two years now. Taking into consideration of the law laid down inSunderbhai Ambalal Desai’scase and the fact that the vehicle is lying exposed to sun and rain, I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for in the Crl.M.C. Hence, I am inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of theBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

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

(i) Condition No.(iii) in Annexure-V order is set aside, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs. 5,00,000/- 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.

(ii) The petitioner shall also comply with Condition Nos.(ii),(iv) and (v) in the Annexure-V order.

(iii) This order shall not stand in the way of the competent authority proceeding with the confiscation proceedings, if any proposed.

(iv) Any application for modification of the above condition shall be entertained and disposed by the learned Magistrate.

C.S.DIAS JUDGE