The court emphasized interim custody rights of seized vehicles, modifying onerous conditions in light of legal precedents.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-57-N-0161. Alleging that the vehicle was used by its driver for committing the offences under Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , Section 120 (e) of the Kerala Police Act and Section 219-J of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , the Investigating Officer in Crime No.1093 of 2025 of the Kalady Police Station, seized the vehicle. The application filed by the petitioner seeking interim custody before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-IV, Perumbavoor ('Trial Court', in short) was conditionally allowed by Annexure A4 order. As per condition No.(ii) in Annexure A4 order, the petitioner has been directed to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.2 lakhs. Although the petitioner sought for modification of condition No.(ii), the same has been dismissed by Annexure A6 order. Condition No.(ii) in Annexure A4 order, and Annexure A6 order, are onerous and unjustifiable. The learned Magistrate has failed to consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283], wherein it is categorically held that properties that have been seized in a crime have to be released on interim custody to its owners. The principles in the above decision are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Indisputably the petitioner's vehicle was seized on 29.07.2025, which is more than six months. It is the petitioner's specific case that he does not have the financial means to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.2 lakhs. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in unequivocal terms, held that seized vehicles should be given on interim custody to its owners.

3. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner's vehicle has been judicial custody from 29.07.2025 and further the petitioner undertakes that he would not use the vehicle for committing any further crime, I am of the definite view that the petitioner's vehicle should be given to him in interim custody, following the principles in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra).

In the aforesaid circumstances, I am inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS and allow the Crl.M.C. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed in the following manner:

i) Annexure A6 order and condition No.(ii) in Annexure A4 order are set aside;

ii) The petitioner is directed to execute a bond for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) with two solvent sureties, in supersession of condition No.(i) in Annexure A4 order; and iii) The petitioner shall comply with condition Nos.(iii) to (ix) in Annexure A4 order.

It is made clear this order will not stand in the way of the competent authority initiating confiscation proceedings against the vehicle.

Sd/-