Interim custody of property pending proceedings should be granted to prevent deterioration.

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

Crl. M.C No. 923 of 2026 -----------------------------------------

Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2026

ORDER

The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration no. KL-21-C-6644. The vehicle was seized by the Chakarakallu Police Station in Crime No. 754/2025, alleging that the vehicle was used for committing the offences punishable under Section

271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (‘ BNS ’, in short).

2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 497 of the BNSS before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate – III, Kannur, (‘learned Magistrate’, in short) seeking interim custody of the vehicle. However, by Annexure 3 order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the vehicle was used to dump toilet and sewage waste in public water bodies. Subsequently, petitioner filed a fresh application for an identical relief, which has also been dismissed by the learned Magistrate as per Annexure A4. Annexures A3 and A4 orders, are erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

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

4. Admittedly, the petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the Investigating Officer in the above crime on 02.11.2025. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. There is no rival claimant for the vehicle. The vehicle has been lying exposed to the vagaries of nature for more than three months. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat , [2002 10 SCC 283], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that interim custody of the property should be given to its owner in order to prevent ruining and deterioration of the property.

5. Taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner’s vehicle has been in judicial custody for last more than three months and is lying exposed to sun and rain, and is likely to get rusted and ruined, I am of definite view that the interim custody of the vehicle should be granted to the petitioner subject to stringent conditions. Thus, I am inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS and grant the interim custody vehicle to the petitioner.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C in the following manner : -

(i)Annexures 3 and 4 orders are set aside.

(ii) C.M.P No. 5427/2025 and CMP No.

01/2026 stand allowed, by granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions;

(a)The learned Magistrate is directed to release the vehicle bearing registration no. KL-21-C-6644 to the petitioner, on interim custody, on him executing a bond for Rs. 10,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

(b)The petitioner shall not alienate, transfer or encumber the vehicle until further orders are passed by the Trial Court.

(c)The petitioner shall not use the vehicle for commission of any offence.

(d)The Investigating Officer would be at liberty to take photographs, video-graphs of the vehicle as envisaged under the law.

(e)The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the learned Magistrate as well as before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

(f) The learned Magistrate is granted liberty to modify the conditions of this order.

(g)This order shall not stand in the way of the competent authority proceeding with confiscation proceedings and bringing it to its logical conclusion.

(h)In case a confiscation order is passed, the petitioner shall adhere to the said order, unless it is otherwise challenged.

Sd/-

Srs/24.02.2026 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE APPEND