The court ruled that onerous conditions for interim custody of seized vehicles contravene established legal principles favoring registered owners.

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------------

Crl.M.C. No. 1193 OF 2026 -----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2026 ORDER The petitioner is the registered owner of a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL 16 L 4739, which has been seized by the SHO, Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transporting sand without a pass in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (‘Act’, in short).

2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner filed an application before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal (‘learned Magistrate’, in short). The application was allowed, subject to conditions. By condition No.(9) in Annexure-A2 order, the learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner to produce the original documents of the vehicle to be kept in safe custody of the court and by condition No.(11), the petitioner is directed to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.1/- lakh. The above conditions are onerous and unjustifiable. The learned Magistrate has failed to consider the fact that there is no rival claimant for the vehicle. Moreover, as per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283], it is well settled that the interim custody of the vehicles have to be granted to the registered owners rather than leaving them exposed to the vagaries of nature. In view of conditions Nos.(9) and (11) of the impugned order, it would be practically difficult for the petitioner to get the vehicle released and use the vehicle. The petitioner’s vehicle is lying in judicial custody for the last one month. Hence, condition Nos.(9) and (11) may be deleted.

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

4. Indisputably, the petitioner’s vehicle was seized on the allegation that it was used in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Although the learned Magistrate has ordered interim custody of the vehicle to be granted to the petitioner, he has imposed condition Nos.(9) and (11)

directing the original documents to be kept in the safe custody of the court and also to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.1/- lakh.

5. On a scrutiny of the provisions of the Act, I do not find any provision that insists on the handing over of the original documents of the vehicle to the Court, and that the vehicle can only be released on interim custody.

6. Taking into consideration the law laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai ‘s case (supra) and the fact that the vehicle is lying in judicial custody for the last one month, I am satisfied that this is fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS and set aside conditions Nos.(9) and (11) in Annexure-A2 order.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C.

in the following manner:

(i) Condition Nos.(9) and (11) in Annexure-A2 order are set aside.

(ii) The interim custody of the vehicle shall be granted to the petitioner subject to the condition that he complies with condition Nos. 1 to 8, 10 and 12.

(iii) It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the competent authority proceeding with the confiscation proceedings, if any proposed.

sd/-