Interim custody of seized property should be granted to the registered owner to prevent the asset from deteriorating (ruining or rusting), especially when the investigation is complete and the charge sheet is filed, subject to reasonable bonds and conditions.

CRIME NO.381/2026 OF Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2026 IN CRMP NO.89 OF 2026 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS,J.

Crl. M.C.No.4175 of 2026

Dated this the 17th day of July, 2026

O R D E R

The petitioner is the registered owner of the car bearing registration No.KL-23-W-8666, which was seized by the Karunagappally Police Station in Crime No.381 of 2026 on the allegation that the accused persons had used the said vehicle to commit the offences punishable under Sections 118(1) and 103(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Although the petitioner filed an application seeking interim custody of the vehicle, by Annexure A2 order, the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karunagappally ('Committal Court', for short), dismissed the application on the grounds that the investigation was at the nascent stage, and it is only after the procedural and evidentiary formalities are completed, the vehicle can be released to the petitioner. Annexure A2 order is ex facie 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. The petitioner submits that the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed. Now, the case has been numbered as C.P.No.71 of 2026. The case is to be committed to the Court of Session.

5. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is the registered owner of the car involved in the crime. There is no rival claimant for the car till date. The vehicle has been lying exposed to the vagaries of nature since 14.03.2026, which is nearly four months now.

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 should be given to its owner in order to prevent the property from getting ruined and rusted.

7. On a consideration of the facts and the materials on record, particularly the fact that the investigation is complete, the charge sheet has been filed and further that the vehicle has been lying exposed to the vagaries of nature for the last four months, I am satisfied that the interim custody of the vehicle can be given to the petitioner so as to avoid it from getting ruined and rusted. Thus, I am inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, subject to the following conditions:

i) Annexure A2 order is set aside;

ii) CMP No.89 of 2026 is allowed, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The learned Magistrate is directed to release the vehicle bearing registration no. KL-23-W-8666 to the petitioner, on interim custody, on him executing a bond for Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakh only) 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 learned Magistrate.

(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 and 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