1. Petition for interim custody of vehicle used in murder under Section 503 BNSS — Trial court dismissed application. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(MP) 498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
DWARKA DHISH BANSAL, J.
Aditya Rajpoot – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 850 of 2026
Decided On : 04-05-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri Ashish Mishra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Samta Jain, Govt. Advocate.
For the Petitioner:Shri Ashish Mishra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Samta Jain, Govt. Advocate.
Seized vehicles should be released to registered owners who are not accused, subject to bonds and undertakings, to prevent deterioration. Evidence can be preserved via photographs and panchnamas instead of prolonged police detention, provided there is no allegation of the owner's connivance in the crime.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 503 - Release of seized vehicle on interim custody (supurdagi) - Registered owner not an accused - Guidelines for release of vehicle - Where a vehicle is seized and the registered owner is not arrayed as an accused, and no allegation of knowledge or connivance is made, the vehicle should normally be released on interim custody subject to the owner furnishing a bond to produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court, or paying the value of the vehicle if it is finally ordered to be confiscated (Para 6(i)).
(B) Detention of seized articles - Power to release vehicles should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously to ensure the owner does not suffer due to non-use or misappropriation, and to prevent deterioration of the vehicle - Seized property should not be retained in custody longer than absolutely necessary - If a proper panchnama is prepared and photographs are taken and countersigned, such evidence can be used in place of physical production of the article during trial (Paras 6(ii), 6(iii)).
Facts of the case:
The registered owner of a vehicle filed an application for its release on supurdagi after the vehicle had been seized for its use in a crime committed by a third party without the owner's knowledge. The lower court dismissed the application on the grounds that the vehicle was the subject matter of evidence and its release would lead to the possibility of tampering, particularly since prosecution evidence was yet to commence.
Findings of Court:
The lower court failed to consider the established legal position and guidelines regarding the interim custody of vehicles given to registered owners who are not accused. The failure to consider that evidence can be preserved through photographs and bonds, and that unnecessary detention leads to vehicle deterioration, vitiated the impugned order.
Issues: Whether the lower court committed an illegality in dismissing the application for the release of a seized vehicle to its registered owner (who is not an accused) without considering existing legal guidelines on supurdagi.
Ratio Decidendi: When the registered owner is not an accused and there is no allegation of connivance in the crime, the vehicle should normally be released on interim custody upon furnishing a bond and an undertaking to produce the vehicle as required. The court may secure evidence by directing the police to take photographs of the vehicle, ensuring that the physical detention of the vehicle is not used as a substitute for documenting evidence.
Result: Criminal revision partly allowed and disposed of; impugned order set aside and matter remanded for fresh decision.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued vehicle not required and should be released; State opposed citing evidence and risk of tampering. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Impugned order set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration of application under Section 503 BNSS. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. What factors must a trial court consider when deciding an application for interim custody of a vehicle under Section 503 BNSS?
The court must consider relevant precedents and guidelines, particularly the scenarios outlined in Praveen Kumar Tiwari, and the principle from Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai that vehicles should not be detained unnecessarily. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Does the non-consideration of binding precedents invalidate an order on interim custody?
Yes, the High Court held that non-consideration of existing decisions vitiates the impugned order. The matter was remanded for fresh decision after considering those precedents. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. What conditions are typically imposed when releasing a vehicle used in an offence to its registered owner?
Conditions include executing a bond with sureties, not transferring ownership, producing the vehicle when required, not altering the vehicle, and sometimes giving an undertaking not to dispute evidence. (Para 6 , 7 )
ORDER :
DWARKA DHISH BANSAL, J.
This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner-Aditya Rajpoot challenging the order dated 10.02.2026 passed by 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur, in ST no.17/2026, whereby the Court below has dismissed an application under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'the BNSS’) filed by the petitioner-Aditya Rajpoot with the prayer for giving the Fortuner Car in supurdagi of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the Fortuner Car bearing registration no.MP16-C-6019, who gave it to his friend Shivam Rai in the morning of 05.08.2025 for going to Bhopal, but without knowledge to the petitioner, he handed over the Car to Nitin Dubey- accused, who allegedly took the Car to Narsinghpur and committed murder of his wife by pressing her neck. He submits that although the Car was seized on 14.09.2025 from Shivam Rai, but the petitioner was not aware of the aforesaid acts of the petitioner’s friend-Shivam Rai and accused-Nitin Dubey. He also submits that since the petitioner is not accused in the case and he being registered owner of the Fortuner Car, the same deserves to be given on Supurdagi to the petitioner with a view to avoid deterioration of the Car, especially in the circumstances when investigation is already completed and the vehicle-Fortuner Car is no more required in the case. He submits that without taking into consideration the aforesaid factual scenario and the existing legal position, the Court below has committed an illegality in dismissing the application by passing an unreasoned order. With these submissions he prays for allowing the criminal revision.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/state supports the impugned order with the contention, that the Court below has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order and in dismissing the application.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Court below has dismissed the application with the observations that the incident occurred in the vehicle- Fortuner Car and in that regard, charge has been framed. It has been alleged by the prosecution that the vehicle is subject matter of evidence and upon giving the same in supurdagi there is every possibility of tampering of the evidence. The Court observed that prosecution evidence is yet to commence, hence it does not appear to be legal to give the vehicle in supurdagi of the petitioner.
6. Although, learned counsel for the parties did not spare any time to assist this Court about the legal position in respect of interim custody of vehicle(s)/article(s) to the real owner but the following cases may be helpful while deciding the application for interim custody of vehicle(s)/article(s) to the real owner :-
(i) In the case of Praveen Kumar Tiwari vs. State of M.P. , 2025 (2) MPLJ (Cri.) 99 (in this case, vehicle is Scorpio), a coordinate Bench of this Court laid down certain guidelines regarding release of vehicle on interim custody, which are as under:
“29. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized / recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner's knowledge and connivance. In the firs
