'Vehicle Cannot Languish In Police Station': Supreme Court Holds Judicial Discretion Under Section 451 CrPC Prevails Over Routine Confiscation

"The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the 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." Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has clarified that the power of a court to grant interim custody of a seized vehicle is not defeated by an absolute statutory embargo, asserting that judicial discretion under Section 451 of the CrPC must be exercised to prevent the unnecessary deterioration of property.

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar observed that courts often err by taking a "narrow view" of their powers, failing to recognize that keeping vehicles idle in police stations serves no public or legal purpose while causing significant financial loss to the owners.

Vehicle Seizure In Liquor Case Sparks Legal Challenge

The dispute arose after the appellant’s truck, carrying a large quantity of Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), was seized by the Gujarat police in January 2025. The owner sought the release of the vehicle pending trial, but the lower courts and the High Court denied the plea, citing an alleged statutory embargo under Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. The appellant then moved the Supreme Court, arguing that the truck was a business asset currently deteriorating at the police station.

Narrow Interpretation Of Statutory Provisions

The primary question before the court was whether Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act constitutes an absolute bar against the release of a vehicle on bond or surety during the pendency of a trial. The court was also tasked with harmonizing the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions with the broader powers vested in criminal courts under the CrPC regarding the disposal of property produced during an inquiry or trial.

Court Rejects Mechanical Application Of Confiscation Laws

The bench emphasized that Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act, particularly after its 2011 amendment, is "not happily worded" and should not be construed as an absolute prohibition that ousts the trial court’s jurisdiction. Drawing on the doctrine of harmonious construction, the court held that the provisions of the Prohibition Act and the CrPC operate in different fields. While the police may seize property, the court retains the authority to pass appropriate orders for its custody to ensure that the asset is not rendered useless through natural decay.

The Perils Of Indefinite Police Custody

The court reiterated that allowing a vehicle to remain in a "state of suspended animation" at a police station benefits no one, as these vehicles are often exposed to harsh weather conditions and risk being cannibalized for parts. The bench noted that any evidentiary value of the seized vehicle can be sufficiently preserved through detailed panchnama, photographs, and videography. The court observed that "a court ought not sit on seized property for years without cause," especially when the trial is likely to span several years.

"It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only they occupy substantial space of the police stations but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions."

Mandate To Balance Owner's Interest And Trial Integrity

The judgment clarifies that applications for interim custody must be disposed of "expeditiously and judiciously," considering the owner’s interest in avoiding financial hardship, the public interest in freeing up police space, and the necessity of evidence preservation. The bench firmly rejected the notion that confiscation proceedings under special statutes should stand in the way of the relief sought under Section 451 of the CrPC, provided the owner furnishes adequate security to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Final Directions For Interim Release

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and subordinate courts, directing the handover of the truck to the appellant. The release is subject to strict conditions, including the submission of a personal bond and security of Rs. 15 lakhs, an undertaking against the creation of third-party interests, and the requirement that the vehicle be produced before the Investigating Officer or Trial Court as and when directed. The court further mandated that a detailed inventory and photographic record be created before the transfer of custody to ensure the integrity of the trial remains uncompromised.

Date of Decision: 02 September 2026