Madras HC: Release Seized Two-Wheeler; Stationed Vehicles Turn to Junk

The Madras High Court has ruled that keeping seized vehicles in police custody indefinitely serves no purpose other than causing physical degradation and financial loss to the rightful owners. Presiding over the matter, Justice Shamim Ahmed emphasized the need for the judicious and prompt exercise of judicial powers to prevent property from turning into junk.

Court's Rationale on Property Custody

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The power conferred under Section 497 of the BNSS must be exercised by the Trial Court with a judicious mind and without any unnecessary delay, so that litigants do not suffer. Merely keeping the vehicle in the custody of the court or police authorities in an open yard serves no useful purpose and will ultimately result in the physical degradation and total damage of the property. The owner should be allowed to enjoy the utility of the property, especially when the registered ownership of the Revision Petitioner is not in dispute."

The Court further highlighted that under Section 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, procedures must be followed promptly to ensure swift disposal and release. Relying on the precedent set in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar Vs. State of Gujarat, the bench reiterated that Magistrates should pass immediate orders for the return of vehicles upon taking appropriate bonds and guarantees, rather than allowing them to remain at police stations for months.

Applicability of Precedents in Excise Matters

Justice Ahmed also took note of several decisions by the Allahabad High Court, including Nand Vs. State of U.P., Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P., and Kamaljeet Singh Vs. State of U.P., which collectively establish that the pendency of confiscation proceedings is not an absolute bar to the release of a vehicle required for trial. The Court found that the Trial Court had failed to properly exercise its powers under Section 497 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court has the following directions:

"(i)The Revision Petitioner shall give a bank guarantee of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) before the said Court;

(ii)The Revision Petitioner shall file an undertaking that she will produce the vehicle in question as and when required by the concerned Court.

(iii)The Revision Petitioner shall not make any structural changes, alterations, or variation in the colour and features of the vehicle in question, nor shall she alienate or encumber the vehicle until the disposal of the main case."

Background:

The case arose from an incident on April 24, 2026, where the Minjur Police seized a TVS NTORQ 150 two-wheeler following a raid on illegal liquor sales at Thotakadu Village. The petitioner, the registered owner of the vehicle, challenged the order dated June 08, 2026, passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Ponneri, which had refused to release the vehicle.

The petitioner argued that the vehicle was not connected to the offence and was forcibly taken from her residence a day prior to the alleged seizure at the crime scene. She highlighted material contradictions in the police reports regarding the date and location of the seizure. The respondent State opposed the release, asserting the vehicle was actively used for transporting contraband. However, the High Court found the lower court's refusal unsustainable, noting that long-term detention in an open yard would cause undue mental agony and reduce the asset to junk.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL RC No. 1298 of 2026
Case Title: Thulasi Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Gangadaran
For the Respondent(s): Mr.M.M.I.Khaleel Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 302