SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 7418

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sunder Mohan, J
INURRILA – Appellant
Versus
State Rep.by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
CRL RC No. 2835 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.Muthamizhselvakumar
For the Respondents: Dr.C.E.Pratap

A seized vehicle may be released to its owner on interim custody to prevent depreciation due to weather, provided the owner executes a bond and undertakes to produce the vehicle as required, subject to final confiscation proceedings.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) challenging an order passed by the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, which dismissed an application for the return of a seized vehicle (Registration No. TN-12-AP-1527) in connection with Crime No. 257 of 2025. The lower court had denied the return on the grounds that the vehicle was used for transporting Ganja. The court found that the petitioner, as the owner, is the proper person entitled to interim custody to prevent the vehicle from deteriorating due to weather conditions. The primary issue was whether the owner of a vehicle seized in a criminal case is entitled to interim custody despite the vehicle's alleged use in illegal activities. The court reasoned that since the vehicle is lying idle at the police station and is subject to the vagaries of weather, thereby deprecating its value, the owner should be granted interim custody pending the disposal of the case, provided stringent conditions are met to ensure the property is produced when required. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to hand over the interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner on the following conditions

Table of Content
1. challenge against the dismissal of an application for return of seized property. (Para 1 , 2)
2. balancing the owner's right to prevent property depreciation against the state's claim of confiscation. (Para 3 , 4)
3. grant of interim custody to the owner subject to stringent conditions and final confiscation results. (Para 5)

PRAYER

Criminal Revision is filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.14728/2025 dated 27.10.2025 passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai - 08.

ORDER

1. The Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the dismissal order passed in the petitioner’s application seeking return of his property seized in connection with Crime No.257 of 2025

2. The petitioner is an accused in the aforesaid case and the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-12-AP-1527 is seized during the course of investigation. He sought for return of vehicle before the learned Judge. The learned Judge dismissed the said petition on the ground that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was used for transporting Ganja.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, entitled to interim custody of the vehicle; that he would abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court for return of the vehicle; that the vehicle is now lying idle at the police station and subjected to vagaries of weather, thereby deprecating its value; and therefore, prayed for interim custody of the vehicle.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), per contra submitted that the petitioner is an accused; and that the vehicle is liable for confiscation; and hence, the revision may be dismissed.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he is the proper person entitled to interim custody of the vehicle pending disposal of the case, and the fact that the vehicle is subjected to vagaries of weather, this court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-08 in Crl.M.P.No.14728 of 2025 in Crime No.257 of 2025. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to hand over the interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner on the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) with two sureties for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-08;

(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 II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-08, shall peruse the RC book and other records, retain a xerox copy of the same and return the original RC book to the petitioner;

(iii) The petitioner shall not alter or alienate the vehicle in any manner;

(iv) The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that he will produce the vehicle as and when required by the respondent and by the Court below.

(v) The return of property would be subject to the result of the confiscation proceedings, if any.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top