Property seized in criminal proceedings should not be allowed to deteriorate in police or court custody; Magistrates must exercise discretionary power to release such property to the rightful owner pending trial, provided adequate security and bonds are furnished.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED A.Kabilan, S/o. Arumugam, No.3/47(2), Anna Street, Melkondai, Villuppuram District.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs The Inspector of Police Vikravandi Police Station, Villuppuram District. Crime No.200/2025 ..Respondent(s)

Prayer:-This Criminal Revision Case is filed, under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to set aside the order, dated 05.08.2025, passed in Crl.MP.No.961 of 2025, by the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vikravandi and to allow this Criminal Revision Case.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. N.Desinghu For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Dinesh, GA (Criminal Side)

ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order, dated 05.08.2025, passed in Crl.MP.No.961 of 2025, by the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vikravandi and to allow this Criminal Revision Case.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that he is the registered owner of the Two Wheeler, Yamaha R15, bearing Reg.No.TN32BD6949 and that on

05.04.2025, the Respondent Police had seized the said vehicle, which was used by his brother, without his consent, in respect of the alleged offences in Cr.No.200 of 2025, under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Hence, the Revision Petitioner had filed the above petition, seeking interim custody of the said Vehicle, before the Trial Court. By the impugned order, the Trial Court had dismissed the said petition, refusing to release the said Vehicle. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, as stated above.

3. This Court heard Mr.N.Desingu, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.Dinesh, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the Revision Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question, which was used by his brother without his consent and that he is not an accused in the alleged crime and that there is no material to show that the Revision Petitioner had involved in the alleged offence and hence, the action of Respondent Police is arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice.

5. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the impugned order of the court below in rejecting the application filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking return of the vehicle in question is not sustainable, as the Revision Petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the Respondent Police and that when the ownership of the vehicle in question is not in dispute, the impugned order of the court below, refusing to return the vehicle, is not sustainable. Thus, the learned counsel seeks to quash the impugned order and to release the vehicle in question, as the action of the Respondent Police is clear cut violation of Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

6.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that from the date of seizure, the vehicle in question is kept in the custody of the Trial Court in the open yard and with the passage of time, ultimately it will become junk and after sometime, it is not useful for any purpose. The learned counsel has relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 2003 SC 638

7.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further drawn the attent