BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Udhayakumar, S/o.Ravichandran, ..Petitioner Vs.

State of TamilNadu represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattiveranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.122/2025) ..Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w.442 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 17.11.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.1129 of 2025 in R.P.R.No.179 of 2025 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, Dindigul District and set aside the same and direct the respondent herein to grant the interim custody for the vehicle, viz., Swift Car bearing Registration No. TN 61 A 5556 and VIVO V2502 Mobile phone which has been seized by the respondent herein in Cr.No.122 of 2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Nagarajan For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaisamy Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

Heard Mr.V.Nagarajan, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and Mr.P.Kottaisamy, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first Respondent.

2. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order of Judicial Magistrate Court, Nilakottai, Dindigul District, dated 17.11.2025 in Cr.M.P.No.1129 of 2025 in R.P.R.No.179 of 2025, whereby the petition filed by petitioner under Section 497 of BNSS for interim custody of vehicle viz., Swift Car, bearing Registration No.TN 61 A 5556 and VIVO V2502 Mobile phone, was rejected on the premise that if the property is handed over to the petitioner, he will involve in similar kind of offence in future.

3. Mr.V.Nagarajan, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that petitioner claims to be owner of the vehicle viz., Swift car, bearing Registration No.TN 61 A 5556. The said vehicle was seized by the Respondent Police and a case was registered in Crime No.122 of 2025, for offences punishable under Sections 140(2), 126(2), 127(2), 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) of BNS, 2023, alleging that petitioner involved kidnapping and extorted money. The Petitioner has filed Crl.MP.No.1129 of 2025 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Nilakottai, Dindigul District, to grant interim custody of the said vehicle and mobile phone, and the said petition was dismissed by the court below by the impugned order dated 17.11.2025 for the reasons stated supra. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner would further submit that petitioner is the owner and that he would abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In support thereof, he produced the copy of RC Book of the said vehicle and invoice cum sales challan of VIVO V2502 Mobile phone and the same were perused by Mr.P.Kottaisamy, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for respondent who confirmed that petitioner is the owner of the subject vehicle and mobile phone.

5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the said vehicle may be released subject to conditions and in case, confiscation proceedings are being initiated, petitioner must co-operate and the same was agreed to by learned counsel for Revision Petitioner. However, he has strong objections to the request for the release of the mobile phone. He would contend that the mobile phone contain crucial details and data, and the Court should not grant interim custody of the phone as it may cause disadvantage to the prosecution and there is a possibility of tampering. 6. At this juncture, learned Counsel for petitioner, on the other hand, would submit that petitioner would cooperate with the prosecution and permit data contained in mobile phone to be retrieved/extracted by respondent and transmitted/migrated to any device of the respondent and undertakes not to tamper with such data. Hence, learned counsel prayed that appropriate direction may be issued to respondent Police to return the seized properties to petitioner. He also undertakes that petitioner would produce the said vehicl