Courts should grant interim custody of seized vehicles to owners without onerous conditions to prevent damage.

ORDER Dated this the 6 ^th day of April, 2026 The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 40A 3779, which was seized by the Panangad Police in Crime No.45/2026, alleging that the accused person had used the vehicle to dump waste in a public premises and, thereby, committed the offences punishable under Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 and Section 120 (e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 .

2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner had filed an application before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-VIII, Ernakulam, (‘Trial Court’, in short). By Annexure 3 order, the Trial Court allowed the application, but subject to conditions. As per Condition No.2, the petitioner has been directed to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.2,00,000/-. The said condition is onerous and unjustifiable. Therefore, Condition No.2 in Annexure-3 order may be set aside.

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

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Condition No.2 in Annexure-3 order is unjustifiable. The petitioner’s vehicle is lying exposed to vagaries of nature since 05.02.2026, which is now nearly two months. The petitioner’s vehicle is likely to get ruined and rusted.

5. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2002(10) SCC 283], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the courts shall grant grant interim custody of the property to its owners subject to conditions in order to avoid the property getting ruined.

6. The petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the Investigating Officer on 05.02.2026 on the allegation that it was used for dumping waste in the public premises. The vehicle is lying exposed to sun and rain for the last two months.

7. Taking into consideration the principles laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai’s case and the vehicle is in judicial custody for the last two months, I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for in the Crl.M.C. Hence, I am inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 .

Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed in the following manner:-

(i) Condition No.2 in Annexure-3 order is set aside.

(ii) Nonetheless, the petitioner shall comply with Condition Nos.1, 3 to 7 in the Annexure-3 order.

(iii) This order shall not stand in the way of the competent authority proceeding with the confiscation proceedings, if any proposed.

(iv) Any application for modification of the above condition shall be entertained and disposed by the Trial Court.