Interim custody of seized property should be granted to true owners unless justified by exceptional circumstances.

ORDER

The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-43-P-7700, which was seized by the Investigating Officer in Crime No.1490/2025, of the Nedumbassery Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging that the accused persons in the above crime committed offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 140(3), 351(2), and 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ).

2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner filed an application before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Angamaly (‘learned Magistrate’ in short). Although there was no rival claim for the vehicle, the learned Magistrate considering the nature and gravity of the offences committed by the accused persons, dismissed the application by Annexure A5 order. Annexure A5 order is palpably wrong and erroneous. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

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

4. The crux of the prosecution allegation in the above crime is that the accused persons had abducted the de facto complainant and took him in the vehicle in question for the purpose of committing theft of gold and a mobile phone worth Rs.1 lakh. Although the petitioner sought for the interim custody of the vehicle, the same has been rejected on the ground that the accused persons have committed a heinous crime.

5. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat [2003 KHC 535] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that properties should be given to the its true owners on interim custody rather than leaving them exposed to sun and rain, and getting them ruined. It may be true that the allegations levelled against the accused persons are serious in nature. Nonetheless, that is not a reason to perpetually detain the vehicle, which was allegedly used by the accused person to commit the above offences, especially when the registered owner of the vehicle is not an accused in the crime.

6. Undisputably, the vehicle has been in judicial custody since 19.12.2025, which is nearly two months back.

7. Going by the principle laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai’s case (supra) and the fact that the petitioner's vehicle is lying exposed to the vagaries of nature for the last two months, and further, there are no rival claims to the vehicle, I am of the definite view that the petitioner should be granted interim custody of the vehicle rather than getting it rusted and ruined. Thus, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C. in the following manner; I) Annexure A5 order is set aside.

II) C.M.A. No. 2 of 2026 filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate stands allowed, subject to the following conditions;

a) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

b) The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the learned Magistrate undertaking that he would produce the vehicle with the Investigating Officer, as and when required, and also with the Magistrate, if directed.

c) The petitioner shall not transfer, alienate, or encumber the vehicle without the previous permission of the trial court d) The investigating Officer will be at liberty to take the photographs/ videographs of the vehicle and also such other materials that are necessary for the proper investigation of the crime.

e) The petitioner shall also undertake not to use the vehicle for the commission of any other offence during the currency of this order.

f) The learned Magistrate is empowered to modify/delete any of the conditions mentioned above.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE SPV APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 1103 OF 2026 PETITIONE