2026:HHC:23659 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1172 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.6.2026 Date of Decision: 22.6.2026. Sahil Thakur …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Ms Rajni Gandhi, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 13.11.2024, passed by learned Special Judge, Shimla (learned Trial Court) vide which the application filed by the petitioner (applicant before learned Trial Court) for seeking the release of the motorcycle was dismissed. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:23659 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the applicant filed an application under Section 497 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for the release of the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-86-6008. It was asserted that the applicant’s father was facing a trial before the Court. The police had seized the motorcycle, which was in the custody of the police. The applicant was pursuing his higher studies and was facing hardship because of the impounding of the two-wheeler. It was difficult for him to travel from one place to another in the absence of a two-wheeler. The applicant would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the two-wheeler be released in favour of the applicant. 3. The application was opposed by filing a reply admitting that the police had seized the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-86-6008 along with the keys. It was asserted that the applicant’s father was heavily involved in the cryptocurrency fraud. The assets of the applicant’s father would be frozen under Section 20 (2) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 (Deposit Act), and the intimation 3 2026:HHC:23659 would be conveyed to the designated and competent authority for the attachment of the motorcycle. The motorcycle was earned through the proceeds of the crime and is liable to be frozen under the provisions of the Deposit Act. Hence, it was prayed that the application be dismissed. 4. The learned Trial Court held that the motorcycle was involved in an unregulated deposit scheme and was liable to be confiscated. The applicant cannot be granted custody of the motorcycle. Hence, the application was dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the applicant has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the motorcycle was registered in the applicant’s name. It had nothing to do with the cryptocurrency fraud. The learned Trial Court had ordered the release of many other vehicles, but the release of the motorcycle was denied to the applicant. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 6. The petition was opposed by filing a reply reproducing the contents of the FIR. It was asserted that the applicant’s father was involved in the commission of 4 2026:HHC:23659 cryptocurrency fraud, and the learned Trial Court had rightly declined the relief to the applicant. The order does not suffer from any perversity. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given a considerable thought to the submission made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. Section 13 of the Deposit Act provides for the attachment of the property by the order of the competent authority. Section 13 (2) provides that the attachment shall continue until an order is passed by the designated Court. Section 15 deals with the confirmation of attachment by the designated Court. 9. It is undisputed that the competent authority has not passed any order for the provisional attachment of the motorcycle. It was asserted in the reply filed before the learned Trial Court that steps are being taken for the attachment of the property; however, the reply filed before this Court does not mention that any steps were taken or any order was passed. In the absence of the order of attachment, the release could not have been denied to the applicant. It was laid down by the 5 2026:HHC:23659 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai versus State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 that the vehicles should not be kept in the police station as they are likely to lose their value. The courts should hand over the custody of the vehicle to a proper person. It was observed: “13. Learned senior counsel Mr Dholakia, appearing for the state of Gujarat, further submitted that at present in the police station premises, a number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to their owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking an ap- propriate bond and a guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the court at any point in time. 14. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over of vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons. 15. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bonds and guarantees, as well as security for the return of the said vehicles if required at any point in time. This can be done pending a hearing of applications for the return of such vehicles. 16. In the case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company, then the insurance company be informed by the court to take possession of the vehicle 6 2026:HHC:23659 which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the court. The court would pass such an order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken, and a detailed panchnama should be prepared.” 10. Learned Trial Court proceeded on the basis that the motorcycle could not have been released under the provisions of the Deposit Act. This is not correct because Section 32(2) provides that all the searches and seizures shall be made as per the provisions of the CrPC. Therefore, the provision of search and the release of the searched property would also apply to the present case. 11. It was submitted that the motorcycle was proceeds of an unauthorised deposit and cannot be released to the applicant. It is a matter of trial whether the motorcycle is the proceeds of the crime or not. At this stage, it is undisputed that the motorcycle is registered in the applicant’s name and he is entitled to its release as the owner. 12. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-86-6008 is ordered to be released to the petitioner along with documents and keys 7 2026:HHC:23659 subject to the furnishing of sapurdari bond in the sum of ₹4,00,000/- (₹ four lakh only) undertaking therein to produce the mororcycle as and when directed to do so, not to change the colour or identity of the motorcycle to make it unrecognizable, not to use the motorcycle for the commission of a similar offence, not to charge or encumber the motorcycle during the trial and not to alienate or deal with the motorcycle in any manner to reduce its value until the disposal of the main petition or the proceedings for confiscation whichever is earlier and in case of failure to pay a sum of ₹4,00,000/- to the State of H.P. The sapurdari bond shall be furnished to the satisfaction of any Magistrate at Shimla. The police shall take the photographs of the motorcycle and shall retain the photocopies of the documents, which shall be countersigned by the petitioner, the accused and the I.O. The present application stands disposed of. 13. The observations made here-in-above are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 22nd June, 2026 (Chander)