Madras High Court holds that mere seizure and parking of vehicles in police custody pending trial, when ownership is undisputed, serves no useful purpose and may subject owners to hardship; directs prompt release to registered owners upon due conditions. The judgment affirms Supreme Court precedent and clarifies scope of interim custody powers under BNSS, providing binding authority in Tamil Nadu and persuasive value elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRL RC(MD)/1220/2025 of P.Rajkumar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu |
| CNR | HCMD011166852025 |
| Date of Registration | 01-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED |
| Court | Madras High Court, Madurai Bench |
| Bench | Single Judge (HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED) |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether Section 497 of BNSS mandates prompt release of seized vehicles pending trial when ownership is not disputed and vehicle is subject to damage if retained. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the trial courts must exercise powers under Section 497 BNSS judiciously and without delay for release of vehicles seized in alleged offences, especially where ownership is undisputed and continued retention in police custody will result in unnecessary hardship or loss. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the High Court directed that vehicles should not remain parked in police stations for extended periods, and proper conditions such as bond and guarantee may be imposed to safeguard proceedings. The pendency of confiscation proceedings or suspicion of illegal use does not bar release to the registered owner, given adherence to procedural safeguards. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The court relied on the rationale that vehicles or movable property should not be kept in the police station in open yards for extended periods, as this causes unnecessary damage and hardship to the owner. Reference was made to Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supreme Court), which prescribes immediate judicial orders for interim custody of seized vehicles upon proper guarantees. Prior High Courts’ judgments holding pendency of confiscation is not a bar for conditional release were also cited. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Police seized a tipper lorry on suspicion of illegal soil mining. The driver fled, but the vehicle was found near the pond without soil load. The vehicle was parked at the police station pending proceedings. The registered owner (petitioner) sought release, stating the vehicle was not involved in illegal activity, ownership was not disputed, and continued seizure affected his livelihood. The trial court refused release; the petitioner challenged this order in revision. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
| Distinguishes | Does not distinguish contrary precedents; affirms earlier Supreme Court/High Court view |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that Section 497 of BNSS imposes a positive duty on trial courts to order interim custody of seized vehicles to registered owners where ownership is not in dispute and continued retention serves no purpose.
- Affirms that pendency of confiscation/parallel proceedings does not operate as a bar to such release.
- Emphasizes that extended retention causes unnecessary hardship, potential violation of Articles 19, 20, and 21, and may render the vehicle useless.
- Imposes binding procedural direction: trial courts must promptly consider interim release applications under Section 497 BNSS and can secure the owner’s production by appropriate bond and bank guarantee.
- Lawyers can use this authority to seek interim release of vehicles in similar factual and legal circumstances, even if the prosecution alleges potential offence use.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court observed that Section 497 of BNSS empowers criminal courts to order interim custody of property produced during inquiry or trial, and Section 503 prescribes procedure by police upon seizure.
- The rationale was drawn from Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supreme Court), which held that retention of seized vehicles in police stations causes avoidable damage and prejudice, and courts should ensure immediate orders for their interim release with necessary safeguards (bonds, guarantees).
- The court cited Allahabad High Court precedents to underline that neither the pendency of confiscation proceedings nor mere suspicion justifies denying interim custody to undisputed owners.
- The trial court’s order was found unsustainable as it did not properly exercise its discretion under Section 497 BNSS, nor did it consider the hardship and deprivation caused to the owner.
- The High Court set aside the impugned order, directed release on suitable conditions (bank guarantee and production bond), and reinforced the obligation of lower courts to deal with such applications promptly and judiciously.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Is the registered owner of the vehicle.
- Denies any illegal activity; claims parking at his own premises.
- Seizure and continued custody of the vehicle cause great hardship and affect livelihood.
- Vehicle is not useful if allowed to deteriorate in police custody.
- Relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and similar authorities.
- Ready to comply with any conditions set by the court.
Respondent (State):
- Vehicle was allegedly used for illegal quarrying (pond soil removal).
- Seizure was lawful; release would undermine ongoing investigation or proceedings.
- Maintains that trial court rightly refused interim custody.
Factual Background
On 01.07.2025, police patrolling on information of illegal pond soil removal found a tipper lorry parked near the pond at Perungudi Village; the driver fled the spot and the lorry had no soil load but traces of excavation were observed. The vehicle was seized and brought to the police station. The petitioner, as registered owner, applied for release, claiming innocence and asserting his livelihood depended on the vehicle. The trial court rejected the application for interim custody, leading the petitioner to file a revision before the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
The court analyzed Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Section 497 empowers courts to make orders regarding interim custody and disposal of property during inquiry or trial, emphasizing prompt action and allowing use of photographic evidence to mitigate risk of deterioration. Section 503 provides for disposal and delivery of property seized by police, including procedure when the owner is known and proclamation when not. The court interpreted these provisions to require courts to act expeditiously and judiciously in granting interim custody, particularly for perishable or easily depreciable property like vehicles.
Procedural Innovations
- The court directed the subordinate trial court to secure appropriate bond and bank guarantee to enable interim release — adopting a practical safeguard mechanism consistent with Supreme Court guidance.
- Mandated forwarding of the judgment for compliance within a stipulated period (one week).
- Relief granted despite absence of a counter affidavit from the police, highlighting the high threshold for denying interim custody where facts are not disputed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court and High Court precedents affirmed and clarified.