The court emphasized the need for adherence to Supreme Court guidelines in entertaining petitions for property return in criminal cases.

ORDER

The petitioner had filed a petition in Crl.MP.SR.No.1163 of 2026 seeking return of the property involved in Crime No.462 of 2025. However, the same was not entertained and was returned. Hence, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is not an accused in the case.

The petitioner's KTM 250 Duke Bike bearing Registration No.TN 66 AQ 8879 was taken by his brother without his knowledge. Later, it was found that the petitioner's brother was found with 1.5 Kg of Ganja while riding the said bike and he was arrested along with the bike.

3. He further submitted that the Apex Court had categorised the entitlement of petitioners for return of property into four categories. In respect of categories 1 and 2, there are certain restrictions, whereas in respect of categories 3 and 4, the claimants are entitled to seek return of property. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inDenash vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2236 and Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assam reported in 2025 INSC 32.

4. In a similar situation in Crl.OP.No.33623 of 2025, this Court by order dated 11.12.2025 had not approved the practice of returning the petition seeking return of property and had directed the Trial Court to follow the directions issued the Apex Court. Despite the same, the Lower Court not entertaining the petition and returned the same on 03.03.2026 is not proper.

5. The learned Addtiional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Trial Court had referred to ROC.No.70917-A/2025/F1 P.Dis.No.84/2025 and returned the petition. However, he fairly submitted that the Supreme Court's directions are otherwise. He further submitted that the decision to return the property or reject the claim is within the discretion of the Trial Court. In all fairness, following the principles of audi alteram partem, the petition ought to have been entertained, heard, and thereafter appropriate orders to be passed.

6. Considering the above submissions, it is seen that this Court in Crl.OP.No.33623 of 2025 by order dated 11.12.2025, had already deprecated the practice of returning the petitions without following the Supreme Court guidelines. More so, not even entertaining the petition is not proper in law. In view of the same, the petitioner is directed to resubmit the returned petition. The Lower Court shall entertain the petition, hear the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders considering the merits of the claim petition.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. The Registry is directed to return the original documents to the petitioner.