Facts: The petitioner's vehicle was seized by the Excise Department in connection with Crime No. 292 of 2025 under Section 65 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act for the transport of illicit liquor valued at Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner contended that he was the registered owner and not an accused in the crime; he had merely lent the vehicle to a friend, Ramvilas Yadav, for the purpose of transporting the friend's parents, unaware that it would be used for illegal activities. The lower courts rejected the application for interim custody on the grounds that the vehicle was used for transporting liquor and that the owner failed to prove he had exercised due care to prevent the offense as per Section 99 of the Act.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner approached the High Court through a Criminal Writ Petition seeking to quash the orders of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Kallam, and the subsequent dismissal of his revision petition by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kallam.
Issue: Whether a seized vehicle can be released to its owner on interim custody (superdari) under Sections 451 or 457 of the Cr.P.C. when the owner is not an accused and had no knowledge of the illegal use of the vehicle, despite the restrictive provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act?
Holding: Yes, the High Court quashed the lower court orders and directed the release of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to specific conditions and a bond.
Reasoning: The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam, which identified four scenarios for vehicle seizure. The Court placed the petitioner in the fourth scenario, where the owner is not an accused and the contraband is seized from a third party without the owner’s knowledge or connivance. In such cases, the vehicle should normally be released on superdari. The Court further noted the absence of a specific bar in the Maharashtra Prohibition Act against the interim return of vehicles. Citing Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, the Court emphasized that vehicles should not be kept idle in police stations to decay. Since the petitioner was not an accused and had no prior involvement in similar offenses, the court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to prevent the loss of the vehicle's roadworthiness.