Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept In Police Stations For Long, Courts Must Judiciously Exercise Power To Release On Supurdagi: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"When a subject matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary." Madhya Pradesh High Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a seized vehicle should not be retained in police or court custody longer than what is absolutely necessary for the purpose of trial. A single-judge bench of Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal observed that the power to release property under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) must be exercised "expeditiously and judiciously." The Court emphasized that keeping vehicles in open spaces at police stations leads to their inevitable deterioration.

The petitioner, Aditya Rajpoot, is the registered owner of a Fortuner Car which was seized in connection with a murder case. Though the petitioner was not an accused, the vehicle was allegedly used by a third party to commit the crime. The 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, dismissed the petitioner’s application for supurdagi (interim custody), stating that the vehicle was a "subject matter of evidence" and there was a possibility of tampering before the commencement of prosecution evidence.

The primary question before the Court was whether a vehicle used in the commission of a grave offence can be released on interim custody to its registered owner when the owner is not an accused. The Court also examined whether the trial court’s refusal to release the vehicle, without considering established judicial guidelines on supurdagi, was legally sustainable.

Trial Courts Must Apply Existing Legal Guidelines For Property Release

The High Court noted that while the trial court dismissed the application on the grounds that the vehicle was evidence, it failed to consider the established legal position regarding the interim custody of articles. The Court observed that the non-consideration of binding precedents and the existing legal framework regarding supurdagi vitiated the trial court's order.

"The non-consideration of the existing legal position has vitiated the impugned order."

Purpose Of Releasing Seized Property During Trial

Justice Bansal referred to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002), which laid down the objectives of exercising power under Section 451 CrPC (now Section 503 BNSS). The Court reiterated that releasing a vehicle serves multiple purposes: it prevents the owner from suffering due to the vehicle remaining unused, relieves the police of the burden of safe custody, and prevents the misappropriation or deterioration of the asset.

Avoid Keeping Vehicles In Open Police Station Lots

The Court emphasized that it is of no use to keep seized vehicles at police stations for long periods where they are often left unattended in open spaces. The bench noted that if a proper panchnama and photographs are prepared before handing over possession, those can be used as evidence during the trial instead of producing the physical vehicle. This approach ensures the trial is not hampered while protecting the value of the property.

"It is for the Court to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles."

Differentiating Between Accused Owners and Innocent Third Parties

The Court relied on the guidelines in Praveen Kumar Tiwari v. State of M.P. (2025), which categorized seizure scenarios into four types. It was observed that when the owner of a vehicle is not arrayed as an accused and has no knowledge of the illegal transaction, the vehicle should normally be released on supurdagi. The bench noted that in such cases, the owner merely needs to furnish a bond to produce the vehicle if the Court eventually orders confiscation.

Bloodstains Or Evidence Collection No Bar To Release

Addressing the concern that the vehicle was "subject matter of evidence," the High Court cited a Kerala High Court precedent (Sameeda v. State of Kerala) where a vehicle was released even after bloodstains were collected from it. The High Court suggested that once the necessary forensic samples are taken and photographs are recorded, the physical detention of the vehicle is no longer required for the purpose of proving the prosecution's case.

"Property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases."

Final Directions and Remand

The High Court concluded that the trial court's order lacked a reasoned analysis of these legal principles. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order dated February 10, 2026, and remanded the matter back to the Additional Sessions Judge. The trial court was directed to decide the application for interim custody afresh, specifically taking into account the guidelines laid down in the cases of Praveen Kumar Tiwari, Jaipal Singh, and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai.

The ruling reinforces the principle that "legal law has not to be applied in a vacuum" and that property rights of registered owners must be balanced against evidentiary requirements. By remanding the case, the High Court has mandated that trial courts must prioritize the preservation of property through interim release rather than allowing assets to rot in police custody.

Date of Decision: 04 May 2026