Vignesh vs State Of Tamilnadu - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 105824

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 105824

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. Murugesan, J
Vignesh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamilnadu – Respondent
CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

Important Points

Seized vehicles should not be kept in police custody for long periods to avoid deterioration and should be released to the entitled person, including the accused, upon providing adequate security, whereas items required for scientific analysis may be retained.

Subject

Criminal Law - Interim Custody of Property

Act Referred

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita: S.438, S.442, S.497, S.498, S.503
Indian Penal Code: S.420

Headnote

(A) Interim Custody of Property - Seized Vehicle - Keeping vehicles at police stations for long periods leads to deterioration; the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders for return upon taking a bond and security, regardless of whether the claimant is the accused. (Para 13(9), 13(11), 13(12))

(B) Interim Custody of Property - Mobile Phones - Properties required for scientific analysis or those that played a vital role in the commission of the offence may be denied interim custody. (Para 13(8))

(C) Criminal Procedure - BNSS - Sections 497, 498, and 503 govern the custody and delivery of property involved in criminal cases to the person entitled to possession. (Para 13(5))

Issues: Whether the revision petitioner is entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicle and mobile phones.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Sangeetha
For the Respondents: V. Moushica

ORDER

Heard and admitted.

02. With the consent of both parties, this criminal revision was taken up for final hearing on 05.10.2026.

03. Claiming an order setting aside the dismissal order dated 12.08.2026 of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirappalli, hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’ for the sake of brevity, passed in C.M.P No.7998/2026, an application filed by the revision petitioner/petitioner/accused under S.497 r/w S.503 BNSS for an order granting him interim custody of a vehicle, Kia Carens Clavis Car, bearing registration number TN 68 AT 1372 (Engine No.D4FASM548042 and Chassis No.MZBGB813LSN), and two mobile phones, iPhone 16 Plus and One Plus Nord 2T 5G, the properties in RP No.106/2026 involved in Cr No.168/2026 under S.420 IPC, on the file of Fort Crime Police Station, Tiruchirappalli Town, the revision petitioner/ petitioner/ accused has filed this Criminal Revision Petition under S.438 BNSS.

04. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in this criminal revision, 'the revision petitioner' and 'the revision respondent', unless the context otherwise requires.

05. Sans minute details, the case of the revision petitioner in the trial court is that a vehicle, Kia Carens Clavis Car, bearing registration number TN 68 AT 1372 (Engine No.D4FASM548042 and Chassis No.MZBGB813LSN), and two mobile phones, iPhone 16 Plus and One Plus Nord 2T 5G, are said to have involved in Cr No.168/2026 under S.420 IPC on the file of Fort Crime Police Station, that in pursuance of such registration of the criminal case, the aforesaid properties have been seized by the respondent police, that the aforesaid properties are now in the interim custody of the respondent police but without proper care or maintenance, that the aforesaid properties, if left idle without proper maintenance, would become useless and ruined and that therefore, the interim custody of the aforesaid properties needs to be granted to the revision petitioner being the owner thereof.

06. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the revision respondent in the trial court is that the investigation is still pending, that if the properties concerned are returned to the revision petitioner, they would be used for the commission of similar offence or they might be sold by the revision petitioner and that therefore, this criminal miscellaneous petition seeking such interim custody of the properties concerned deserves for dismissal.

07. Neither the revision petitioner nor the revision respondent has chosen to lead any evidence, either oral or documentary, before the trial court.

08. On enquiry, the trial court has dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl MP No.7998/2026 on the finding that if the properties concerned are returned to the revision petitioner, they would be used for the commission of similar offence or they might be sold by the revision petitioner.

09. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the dismissal of the claim of interim custody of the properties is not only against law but also against the settled principles on such grant of interim custody of the properties, that the trial court, without due application of its judicial mind, has simply accepted the objections raised by the revision respondent and thereby dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition in mechanical manner, that therefore, the order of the trial court is obviously liable to be interfered with and that therefore, this criminal revision petition, in the interest of justice, needs to be allowed, setting aside the order of the trial court and thereby granting the interim custody of the properties concerned.

10. Learned counsel for the State (Crl Side) appearing for the revision respondent would submit that this is a case where the petitioner is alleged to have cheated several persons by promising employment abroad, that the investigation has disclosed further complaints of similar