1. The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) challenging the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Crl.M.P.No.199 of 2026 in Cr.No.73 of 2025 on the file of Nandhyal III Town Police Station, whereby and whereunder an application filed under Section 497 of ‘the BNSS,’ by the Petitioner/Accused No.1, who is the owner of the Swift Desire Car bearing No.AP 40 BR 7759 for interim custody was dismissed.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is not the owner of the property. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was involved in commission of an offence punishable under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act.’

4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat ((2002) 10 SCC 283), gave certain guidelines regarding the granting of temporary custody of property to claimants, wherein at paragraph Nos.7 and 17 as under:

                  “7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:

                  1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

                  2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

                  3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

                  4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

                  17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.”

5. Till the guilty is proved the Petitioner is presumed to be innocent is the cardinal principle of adverse criminal jurisprudence. If the vehicle is kept in police station without actually being used it may be exposed to light, air and rain and liable for natural decay, no purpose would be served if it is left like that. Therefore, the vehicle is released to the interim custody of the Petitioner with certain stringent conditions, the vehicle would be used for lawful purposes.

6. Having bestowed anxious consideration upon the entirety of the facts, circumstances, and material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Criminal Revision Case is allowed by setting aside the order dated 13.03.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.199 of 2026 by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool. It is further directed that the subject vehicle be released into the interim custody of the Petitioner, subject to the Petitioner furnishing a Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) and executing a personal bond for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) with two sureties, to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, as a condition precedent to such release.

7. The learned Jurisdictional Magistrate shall, while effecting the release of the vehicle, adhere with utmost fidelity and strictness to the principles and procedural safeguards enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai supra, and ensure their scrupulous implementation so as to preserve the evidentiary value of the property and safeguard the interests of justice.

8. The vehicle shall not be used for any offence, including the alleged similar offence. The Petitioner shall produce the property either before the learned Magistrate or before the Court of Session which is going to try the case for the purpose of marking the property as material object.

9. It is made clear that the property is given only for interim custody. The learned Trial Court/Session Judge would decide about the ownership of the property also, if there is any rival claim. The property shall not be disposed until conclusion of trial. To that effect the Petitioner shall submit an undertaking affidavit before the learned Trial Court.

10. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool is directed to release the vehicle subject to the production of the sureties to the satisfaction of the learned learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.