Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2929
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
Rajesh Kumar Gupta, J
Girraj Kushwah – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39912 of 2025 | MCRC-39912-2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pallav Tripathi
For the Respondents: Atul Kumar Sharma
Seized vehicles should not be kept in police custody for prolonged periods as they are prone to natural decay and loss of value; they should be released to the registered owner upon furnishing adequate security and bonds.
Headnote:The petitioner sought the release of a seized tractor-trolley under Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which had been rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Sessions Judge. The vehicle was seized for alleged illegal sand transportation in violation of the Wild Life Protection Act and the Indian Forest Act. The court found that the lower courts failed to consider the inevitable deterioration of the vehicle while lying in open police custody. The primary issue was whether a seized vehicle should remain in police custody during a prolonged trial. The court reasoned that keeping vehicles in open spaces leads to natural decay and loss of value, noting that a proper panchanama can be used as evidence instead of physical production of the vehicle during trial, thereby justifying its release to the owner. this petition is allowed and it is directed that on proving ownership of the seized Tractor-Trolley bearing Registration Number MP06-ZG-3302 by the petitioner and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only) alongwith one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of CJM concerned, the aforesaid Tractor-Trolley bearing Registration Number MP06-ZG-3302 be released on Supurdginama, subject to following conditions
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 528 of BNSS against the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Morena in Criminal Revision No.88/2025 whereby the order dated 31.05.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena in POR No.9916/2012 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS for taking the possession of the seized vehicle by Chambal Sanctuary, Game Range Deori District Morena.
The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that FIR was registered against the petitioner at POR No.9916/2012 by Game Range Deori, District Morena for the offences punishable under Sections 497, 503 of BNSS and Sections 27, 29, 50, 51 and 52 of the Wild Life Protection Act and Section 41 and 52 of Indian Forest Act and alleging that Tractor Trolley bearing registration number MP06-ZG-3302 belonging to the petitioner was involved in illegally transporting sand from Chambal River.
The petitioner claims to be registered owner of the said Tractor Trolley bearing Registration Number MP06-ZG-3302. It is further submitted that petitioner filed an application under Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS before the Trial Court for releasing the aforesaid vehicle which was dismissed vide order dated 31.05.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the Criminal Revision was also preferred which has also been dismissed by the Revisional Court, as indicated above. Hence, this petition has been preferred.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and the aforesaid vehicle is in custody of Police and is lying in open sky while it requires continuous maintenance from time to time and if it is kept locked, the engine and other parts of the said vehicle will be out of order and the same will become useless for any work. There is no use of keeping the said vehicle in police custody for years till the trial is over. Trial is not likely to conclude in near future and may take long time. In such circumstances, it would be just and proper to release the said vehicle of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no use of keeping the said vehicle in police custody for years till the trial is over. Trial is not likely to conclude in near future and may take long time. In such circumstances, it would be just and proper to release the said vehicle of the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer and submitted that the Court below has rightly rejected the application. He further submits that no palpable error on the face of record has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in the order impugned. The said vehicle would be required during the trial for describing the nature of the property in detail, therefore he prays for dismissal of the instant petition.
Heard the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
The Apex Court in the case of Sundar Bhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujrat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 has laid down the procedure for disposal of the valuable items like currency, liquor, vehicle and narcotics drugs and has held as under :-
“Powers under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:-
1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation.
2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the properly in detail; and
4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance
