$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1957/2026 & CRL.M.A. 19577/2026 SHRI RAJUGIR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Mr. Ashish Kumar and Mr. Gaurav Prakash Pathak Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Monica Benjamin, SSC, Mr. Abhinav Kalia, JSC, Ms. Laiba Arif, Advs. Ms. Monica Benjamin, SSC and Mr. Abhinav Kalia, JSC with Mr. Devesh Khara, Mr. Ajit Kr. Kalia and Ms. Laiba Arif, Advs. for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 28.07.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking provisional release of commercial vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ10GC2393, which was seized on 12.09.2025 in connection with proceedings initiated under the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of commercial vehicle and is engaged in transportation actvites for earning his livelihood. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:39:09 3. The facts of the case would indicate that on 12/13.09.2025, officers of the respondent authorities intercepted aforesaid vehicle and allegedly recovered foreign cigarettes from said vehicle. Subsequently, the alleged foreign origin cigarettes and the vehicle was seized. 4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made a representation dated 06.04.2026 to respondent authorities, seeking provisional release of the vehicle. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that despite the representation till date no communication has been made neither any order has been passed by the respeondent authorities. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the vehicle has remained in the custody of the respondent-authorities for almost one year. It is submitted that the investigation has substantially been completed and the respondent-authorities have already prepared the seizure memo, inventory, photographs and other relevant documents. According to him, continued physical detention of the vehicle is serving no useful purpose and the same is causing deterioration and depreciation of the vehicle, which constitutes the sole source of livelihood of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act are still pending and the vehicle is liable to confiscation in accordance with law. He, however, also submits that in the event this Court is inclined to direct provisional release, appropriate safeguards may be imposed to secure the interest of the Revenue. 7. I have heard submissions on behalf of both the parties and have perused the record. 8. The provisions of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 specifically contemplates provisional release of seized goods or conveyances pending This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:39:09 adjudication upon furnishing of bond, security and upon such reasonable conditions as may be imposed. The object of the provision is to balance the interest of investigation with the proprietary rights of the owner during pendency of adjudication. 9. This Court in the case of Mala Petrochemicals & Polymers v. The Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence1, observed that the power under Section 110A of the Customs Act for provisional release of seized goods is discretionary; however, such discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably and on relevant considerations and is amenable to judicial review if exercised arbitrarily. The Court further observed that each case must turn on its own facts and no inflexible rule can be laid down regarding the conditions for provisional release. 10. Bearing in mind the facts of the present case, the vehicle has remained under seizure since 12/13.09.2025. The respondent-authorities have already completed the essential seizure formalities and there is nothing on record to indicate that continued physical custody of the vehicle is indispensable for any further investigative purpose. It is also not disputed that adjudication proceedings are still pending and no final order of confiscation has yet been passed. 11. Keeping the vehicle stationary for a prolonged period is likely to result in deterioration of its condition and consequent depreciation in its value. The interest of the respondent-authorities can adequately be protected by directing the petitioner to furnish appropriate bond, security and undertaking for production of the vehicle as and when required. 1 W.P.(C) 2965/2017 & 4123/2017 order dated 19.05.2017 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:39:09 12. In view of the aforesaid, respondent no.1 is directed to decide the petitioner’s pending representation in accordance with the Scheme of Section 110A of the Act with due expedition. 13. Let the decision be taken within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today. 14. Petition stands disposed of. 15. All rights and contentions are left open. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 28, 2026/P/ss This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:39:09