Ruled in favour of Mukesh S/O Vinod Mishra (Petitioner)
In Short
A car belonging to Mukesh Mishra was seized by the cyber police during an investigation into a cheating case. Even though Mukesh was not accused of any crime, the lower courts refused to return his vehicle while the trial was pending. The High Court stepped in, setting aside those lower court orders and ruling that the car should be handed back to its innocent owner under specific conditions.
The Parties
Party A: Mukesh S/O Vinod Mishra
Party B: State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Cyber Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur
Advocates & Judges
For Party A: Learned Advocate Mr. Yatharth Badwaik, h/f Learned Advocate Mr. S.D. Chande
For Party B: Learned Advocate Mrs. Joshi
Judge(s): Hon'ble Justice Mehroz K. Pathan
What the Case Was About
The cyber police in Nagpur registered a criminal case involving cheating and IT act violations. During their investigation, the police seized a Tata Safari vehicle and kept it parked at the police station. Mukesh Mishra, who is the registered owner of this vehicle, was not named as an accused in the crime. He filed an application asking the court to release his car to him temporarily so it would not get damaged or destroyed sitting outdoors in the weather. The lower magistrate and the sessions court both rejected his request, leading him to file a writ petition in the High Court.
Judgment Date
01-10-2026
The Outcome
The court ruled in favour of the petitioner and allowed the writ petition. The High Court set aside the previous orders that refused to release the vehicle and ordered the police station to hand the car back to Mukesh Mishra after he completes certain formal requirements and gives security.
What the Court Looked At
- The High Court noted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle and is not an accused in the ongoing criminal case.
- The court considered previous Supreme Court guidelines stating that vehicles kept parked indefinitely at police stations rot, decay, and lose their value due to weather and weather damage.
- The court looked at Supreme Court rules which say that when a vehicle owner is not an accused and the vehicle was not used with the owner's knowledge in a crime, it should normally be released to them temporarily during a trial.
- The court rejected the government lawyer's argument that the vehicle must remain locked up just because it was seized in a serious cyber crime case.
"It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only do they occupy substantial space in the police stations but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions."
What This Means For You
This case shows that just because your property is seized during a police investigation into a cyber crime, it does not mean you will lose it forever—especially if you had nothing to do with the actual crime. If your vehicle or asset gets caught up in a police case because someone else used it or because of an unrelated dispute, you do not have to sit quietly and watch it rust away in a police compound. You have the right to petition higher courts for interim custody by proving you are an innocent owner. If you find your vehicle or valuable property locked up by police while you are completely uninvolved in the wrongdoing, Setback Solutions can help you understand your options and coordinate your next steps in plain language.
You Still Have Options
If your vehicle has been seized by the police in a cyber crime case and you are struggling to get it back from the authorities, it is not the end of the road. You can still explore alternative legal remedies, seek a second opinion from qualified legal professionals, or get non-judicial guidance on how to file proper release applications. Reach out to Setback Solutions for help understanding your options and coordinating the next step.