records and the objection filed before the learned Magistrate, is briefly as follows:

Crime No.293 of 2025 was registered on the file of Town West Police Station, Dindigul, for alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b) (ii)(A) and 25 of the NDPS Act. The allegation is that certain persons were found in possession / transport of ganja in a quantity attracting Section 20(b)(ii)(A) (small quantity), constituting an offence under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(A), and that the vehicle mentioned below was used in connection with the said offence.

4. The police seized the Royal Enfield Himalayan motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-57-BM-8218, with Engine and Chassis numbers as noted above, treating it as a conveyance involved in the commission of the NDPS offence. The motorcycle is presently in the custody of the respondent police, kept in the police station as case property. In the written objection filed to Crl.M.P.No.2147 of 2025, the prosecution stated that the application for return of the vehicle is “not maintainable” and that the investigation is still pending, and that if the vehicle is handed over to the petitioner, he will not produce it in future. On this basis, the prosecution strongly opposed interim release of the vehicle.

Case of the Petitioner:

5. The petitioner’s case, as projected in Crl.M.P.No.2147 of 2025 and reiterated before this Court, is as follows:

The petitioner is the registered owner of the Royal Enfield Himalayan motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-57-BM-8218, with Engine No. D4A5F1ML127442 and Chassis No. ME3D4A5F1ML002305. The said motorcycle was seized in connection with Crime No.293 of 2025, registered for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) and 25 of the NDPS Act, and has been kept in the custody of the respondent police. The petitioner contends that he is the lawful owner of the motorcycle and that he is not involved in the alleged NDPS offence, and that there is no nexus between him personally and any illicit transportation of contraband.

6. He states that the motorcycle is now kept at the police station in an open space, exposed to rain, sun and other natural factors, and is thus undergoing natural decay and mechanical deterioration. If the motorcycle is kept continuously in the respondent police station, it will eventually lose its value and become unfit for proper road use, causing serious financial loss and hardship to him. He asserts that he is ready and willing to produce the vehicle whenever required by the Court or the Investigating Officer, to furnish bonds and sureties, and to comply with any conditions the Court may impose. On these grounds, he sought interim return of the motorcycle, which request was declined by the learned Magistrate.

Gist of the Trial Court Order:

7. By order dated 04.08.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.2147 of 2025, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, dismissed the petitioner’s application. From the material placed, the substance of the order is:

The vehicle stands seized in connection with an NDPS case in Crime No.293 of 2025, and investigation is pending. The prosecution has stated that the petition is not maintainable, and that if the vehicle is returned to the petitioner, he will not produce it in future. Having regard to the pendency of investigation and the objection raised by the prosecution, the Court held that interim custody of the vehicle cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petition for return of property was dismissed.

Grounds of Revision:

8. The petitioner challenges the impugned order broadly on the following grounds:

The finding that the petition is “not maintainable” is legally unsustainable, inasmuch as Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C.,1973 (now Sections 497 and 503 BNSS) specifically confer power on criminal courts, including Magistrates, to pass appropriate orders regarding seized property. The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the petitioner is the registered owner of the motorcycle, and, on the material now available, a bona fide cla