Property seized during an investigation that is not subject to dispute regarding ownership should be released to its owner for safe custody pending trial to prevent depreciation, provided the owner furnishes adequate security and ensures the property's availability for court proceedings.

ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order dated 06.04.2026, made in Crl.MP.No.1577 of 2026, by the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and to return the vehicle in question and to allow the above Criminal Revision Petition.

2. The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner is the owner of the Four Wheeler, Toyota Innova Hycross (7S) bearing Reg.No.TN-18-BR-6445 which was seized by the Respondent Police on 28.01.2026, in Cr.No.38 of 2026 for the offence under Section 75((2) of BNS read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 . Hence, the Revision Petitioner had filed the above petition, seeking release 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.R.Parthiban, 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 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.

5. 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.

6. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court, regarding the provisions of Sections 497 and 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which is quoted as under:-

"497. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.-When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section," property" includes-

(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody,

(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

(2) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of fourteen days from the production of the property referred to in sub-section (1) before it, prepare a statement of such property containing its description in such form and manner as the State Government may, by rules, provide.

(3)The Court or the Magistrate shall cause to be taken the photograph and if necessary, videograph on mobile phone or any electronic media, of the property referred to in sub-section (1).

(4)The statement prepared under sub-section (2)