The court held that interim custody of seized property should be granted to its owner to prevent deterioration, and trial courts cannot impose onerous financial conditions when the property was not used in the commission of the offence.

Dated this the 16th day of June, 2026

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 28/2026 registered by the Kanjar Police Station, Idukki District, alleging the commission of the offences under Sections 75(1), 351(1), 69 and 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act.

2. In connection with the above crime, the petitioner’s car bearing registration No. KL-38-F-6315 was seized by the Investigating Officer. Seeking interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner had filed an application before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thodupuzha (‘Trial Court,' for brevity). By Annexure-1 order the Trial Court has allowed the application and granted the petitioner interim custody of the vehicle, but subject to conditions. As per Condition No. (2), the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 4/- lakh in cash or bank guarantee or fixed deposit for the release of the vehicle. The said condition is onerous and unjustifiable. In fact, the vehicle was not used for the commission of the offences. Hence, there is no reason for the Trial Court having imposed such an unjustifiable condition. Due to the above condition, the petitioner is unable to get his vehicle released. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

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

4. Indisputably, the petitioner has been alleged to have committed the above offences. The vehicle in question was not used for the commission of the offences.

5. 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.

6. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner’s vehicle in question was not used for the commission of the offences and the fact that the vehicle has been lying exposed to the vagaries of nature since 27.06.2025, I am inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS and allow the Crl.M.C and order the interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C, by setting aside condition No. (2) in Annexure-I order, but subject to the condition that the petitioner complies with conditions Nos. (1) and (3) to (6) in Annexure-I order.