The court can exercise discretion in granting interim custody of seized property considering the balance of justice and evidence preservation.

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C. No.41 of 2026 -----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2026 ORDER The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No. TN 50 AP 6768. The vehicle was seized by the Kareelakulangara Police Station, Alappuzha in Crime No. 525/2025, on 13.06.2025, alleging that the accused persons had used the vehicle to commit an offence under Section 310 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (‘ BNS ’, in short).

2. The petitioner had filed an application under Section

497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (‘ BNSS ’, in short) before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate–I, Haripad, (‘learned Magistrate’, in short) seeking interim custody of the vehicle. However, by the impugned Annexure-3 order, the learned Magistrate had dismissed the application on the ground that there are serious allegations levelled against the vehicle. Hence, the vehicle cannot be released to the petitioner on interim custody. Annexure-3 order is erroneous and unjustifiable in law. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. The Investigating Officer has filed a statement, inter-alia, stating that the accused persons had used the vehicle to commit a serious crime. The registration board of the vehicle was changed by the accused persons. They had used the vehicle for nearly 1½ years without registering it. The accused in the case are persons with criminal antecedents. They used the vehicle with fabricated documents. It is strongly suspected that the vehicle was used for committing a similar offence which is registered as Crime No.1759/2025 by the Changanassery Police Station. The investigation in the said case is in progress. If the vehicle is released to the petitioner, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence and also destroying the vehicle, which may lead to destruction of the evidence. Hence, there is no error in the impugned Annexure-3 order.

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

5. Admittedly, the petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the Investigating Officer on 13.06.2025, which is more than eight months now. The investigation in the case is said to be in progress. The main objections of the Investigating Officer are that: the vehicle has to be identified by the witnesses, the petitioner may use the vehicle to commit similar offences and he may also scrap the vehicle which will lead to destruction of the evidence. Moreover, in the subsequent crime also, the petitioner’s vehicle has to be identified.

6. 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 has been given to its owner at the earliest in order to prevent ruining and deterioration of the property.

7. In the case at hand, the crime has been registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offence under Section 310 of the BNS . Although the crime was registered on 15.06.2025, which is more than eight months now, the investigation in the case is not complete and the final report has not been filed. The main objection of the prosecution is that the vehicle is involved in a subsequent crime and therefore, it has to be identified by the witnesses in the subsequent crime.

8. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer in the subsequent crime has not sought for the seizure of the vehicle and production before the concerned court. Merely because there is an apprehension that the witnesses in the subsequent crime have identified the vehicle, the same cannot be a ground to deny interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner.