Interim custody of seized property should be granted to the registered owner to prevent deterioration and ruin, provided stringent conditions are imposed to ensure the property is produced when required.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS,J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =Crl. M.C.No. 7564 of 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dated this the 24th day of September, 2026

O R D E R

The petitioner claims to be the registered owner of a vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-59-A-153, which was seized by the Vazhakkad Police Station, Malappuram, in Crime No.378 of 2026, alleging that the accused persons had used the vehicle for committing the offences punishable under Sections 272 and 271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 219B of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Section 120(e) of the Kerala Police Station.

2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner filed an application before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Malappuram ('learned Magistrate', in short). However, by the impugned Annexure A3 order, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application on the finding that the vehicle was used to dump non-biodegradable waste in paddy fields situated adjacent to a public road and this Court in W.P.(C) No.7844 of 2023 has ordered that stringent action should be taken against such vehicles. The impugned order is ex facie erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence, this petition.

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

4. Undisputedly, the petitioner's vehicle was seized by the Investigating Officer in the present crime on 02.07.2026. There is no rival claimant for the vehicle. The vehicle has been lying exposed to the vagaries of nature for more than two months now.

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 of the fact that the petitioner’s vehicle has been in judicial custody for last more than two 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.

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

(i) Annexure A3 order is set aside;

(ii) C.M.P.No.2 of 2026 stands 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-59-A-153 to the petitioner, on interim custody, on him executing a bond for Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty 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 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; and

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