Supreme Court orders to release the TATA Tipper Lorry vehicle seized in 2021 and says, “Keeping a vehicle idle is not serving anybody’s interest”

In an order, the Supreme Court (SC) ordered the release of the TATA Tipper Lorry vehicle seized in September 2021 and kept in the Court’s custody since then. The order was delivered after observing that keeping the vehicle idle was not in anyone’s interest. The bench constituting Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti said, “Keeping a vehicle like a Tipper Lorry idle is not serving anybody’s interest. It is resulting in damage to the stationary vehicle which is kept within the Magistrate Court complex. Public spaced is also occupied.” 

In this case, the petitioner, the registered owner of the lorry, is accused in a criminal case initially under Section 294(b), Section 323, Section 379, and Section 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) lodged at Police Station-Karimangalm. Initially, in January 2022, his application for the release of the TATA Tipper Lorry which was filed under Section 451 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure), was rejected by the Sessions Court due to an ongoing investigation. The petitioner challenged the order in the Madras High Court. The HC dismissed the lorry owner’s revision application against the Sessions’s Court after noting that “the proceedings for confiscation is provided under the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957.” 

After hearing the contentions from both parties, the SC said Keeping a vehicle idle is not serving anybody’s interest. It further said that such an act is just damaging the stationary vehicle and occupying space within the Magistrate Court Complex. The SC ordered, “...we deem it appropriate to order for release of the TATA Tipper Lorry vehicle with registration…The release will be however be subject to the petitioner (registered owner) furnishing a bond of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with an undertaking that the vehicle would be produced before the Court as and when required. The owner of the vehicle should not also create any third party right for the vehicle in question.”

During the proceedings, learned senior counsel Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan and learned counsel Mr. D. Kumanan appeared for the petitioner and the State of Tamil Nadu respectively.