IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Ravi Appaji ...Petitioner/Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, T-1, Tambaram Police Station, Chennai – 600 045.

(Crime No.154 of 2025). …Respondent/Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the Order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, in Crl.M.P.No.1745 of 2024 and set aside the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mageshkumar For Respondent : Mr.Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER The Criminal Revision is to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tambaram, in Crl.M.P.No.1745 of 2025 dated 08.09.2025, refusing to release the petitioner's vehicle, viz., a THAR bearing Reg.No.TN 19 BB 0024, and a mobile phone, VIVO 30 IMEI Nos.186378065871470 and 186378065871462.

2. The petitioner is an accused facing prosecution in P.R.C No.18 of

2025 for the offences under Sections 140(10), 115(1), 103(1), 308(2) and

61(2) of BNSS 2023.

3. The petitioner's vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 19 BB 0024, besides his mobile phone VIVO 30, was seized during the course of the investigation. The petitioner had sought for the return of the said vehicle and the phone before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tambaram, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 08.09.2025.

4. Mr.G.Mageshkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that he would abide by any stringent conditions for the return of the vehicle and mobile phone, and if those two articles are kept unused in the police station, it would diminish their value, and he prayed for the return of the vehicle and phone.

5. Dr. C. E. Pratap, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent, on instructions, would submit that the case has now been committed to the sessions; that the petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 19 BB 0024; and that the petitioner's vehicle was seized on 19.03.2025.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and perused the records.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 19 BB 0024. The vehicle is said to have been used for kidnapping the deceased, who was subsequently done to death, according to the prosecution, by the petitioner and other accused. The petitioner's vehicle was seized on 19.03.2025. The said vehicle cannot be kept idle at the police station, and its value cannot be allowed to be diminished, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner as the owner of the vehicle is the proper person entitled to the custody of the vehicle. Hence, this Court is inclined to return the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 19 BB 0024 to the petitioner. However, as regards the mobile phone, it is seen that the respondent require the same to be marked in the trial Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition insofar as the mobile phone is concerned.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed, and the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram in Crl.M.P.No.1745 of 2025 in Crime No.154 of 2025 is partly set aside. In view of the same, the learned Magistrate is directed to return the vehicle, viz., THAR bearing Reg No.TN 19 BB 0024, to the petitioner on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with two sureties for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram;

(ii) The petitioner shall produce the original RC Book along with a self-attested Photostat copy of the RC Book of the vehicle and other relevant records to prove his ownership. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, shall peruse the RC book and other records, retain a xerox cop