Keeping Seized Vehicles In Police Custody For Years Serves No Purpose; Record Video, Release After Verification: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that keeping seized vehicles in police custody for years serves no useful purpose and results in depreciation, decay, and environmental harm. The Court underscored that modern technology allows for digital documentation — including video and photographs — to serve as sufficient evidence, thereby enabling timely release of vehicles to their rightful owners.

The Court allowed the plea seeking release of Maruti Swift Car seized in connection with FIR, registered, under Sections 110, 115(2), 3(5), 351(3), 117(2), and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

"If the vehicle is kept in a police parking lot, its value would depreciate, it would rust and decay, and the windowpanes would likely break, the color would fade away, significantly altering its appearance, making it impossible for any person to identify the vehicle. If the vehicle is left in a seized condition, it will lose roadworthiness, turn into junk, and eventually exceed the time limit for which it was designed and approved to run on the roads," the judge observed.

It added further that, "the case property being stolen, released, or destroyed under misidentification, or lost can also not be ruled out. Further, at the time the vehicle was produced, so many carbon emissions occurred in the process, during extraction, and through rollout from the production line, and immense damage to the planet has already been done."

Would a Metro Train or Plane Be Seized for Years Merely Because an Accused Is Unavailable?

The Court highlighted that the primary reason for the refusal to release the vehicle assigned by the Judicial Magistrate is the objections raised by the police that the co-accused are yet to be arrested and the vehicle is a case property.

"If we assume that the co-accused are never arrested or arrested after a considerable time, would it be justifiable to keep the vehicle with the police for ages? If the incident had taken place in a metro or a plane, or by firing from the door of a train, would such vehicles be seized, and hypothetically if yes, for how many years simply because the accused is not available or cannot be arrested? Rather, it would be let off after conducting a forensic science examination and a proper search," the Court said.

It further pointed that, "had the incident taken place in a battery-operated rickshaw, usually driven by people with meagre means, or in a taxi, which is hypothecated and monthly installments of loan and interest have to be paid against advanced postdated cheques or standing debit instructions, "should the livelihood of such a person be put at stake simply because the incident/accident had taken place in their vehicle?."

Remedy Lies In Digital Evidence, Not Endless Seizure

The Court emphasized that under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 — corresponding to Section 451 CrPC, 1973 — courts are empowered to release seized property after recording digital evidence like photographs or videos.

The Court relied on precedents such as Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore (1977) 4 SCC 358, Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283, and Canara Bank v. State of Punjab, 2005 SCC OnLine P&H 878, reiterating that seized vehicles should not be kept in custody longer than necessary.

It observed that, "If the vehicles are kept in police custody till the completion of the investigation, not only would the livelihood of all such people be adversely affected and put on the line, but they would also be pushed into deep pits of debt, and the banks that had financed the vehicles would also be affected. Further, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the open spaces in and outside the police stations have abundant seized vehicles, and even if those are produced at the time of trial, because of the perennial exposure to the Sun, dust, rain, and storms, it would be challenging for a person to assuredly gauge about its involvement or non-involvement."

“The remedy does not lie in keeping vehicles parked at police stations but in resorting to digital evidence. Digital records can be stored indefinitely by upgrading technology,” the Court stated.

District Judiciary Must Give Cogent Reasons For Denying Release Of Seized Vehicles

The Court also observed:

“The District Judiciary, while adjudicating the applications for the release of vehicles which are not required to be confiscated under any Statute or Judicial Orders, shall not reject the applications for release except by mentioning the reasons and distinguishing the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred to above and the observations made in this order. Needless to say, while allowing the application for release, it shall be open to refer to this order.”

The Registry was directed to circulate digital copies of the order to all Judicial Officers in Punjab, Haryana, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

In the present case setting aside the impugned orders, the Court directed that upon verification of the registration certificate and confirmation of ownership, the vehicle should be released to the petitioner.

If the vehicle is hypothecated, the Court directed that the concerned financial institution be informed about its release.

The Bench further ordered that Investigating Officers, SHOs, and supervisory police officers must ensure prompt compliance with court orders regarding vehicle release. The release must be completed within 60 days, failing which the order would stand automatically recalled on the 61st day under Sections 403 and 528 BNSS, 2023.

Mr. Vivek Monga, Advocate and Mr. Arvind Monga, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rakesh Jangra, AAG, Haryana.

Title: Amit Tanwar v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 445

Click here to read order