CRL RC No. 1013 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED CRL RC No. 1013 of 2026 Hiyda W/o Jobrial Dani, No.10(1), Sivasankarapuram, 1st Street, Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police T6, Avadi Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: To call for the records in Crl.MP.No.87 of 2026 dated 29.01.2026 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Poonamallee set aside the same and directed the trial court to Return the Property Maruti-S-Press VXI(0) bearing Chasis No.MA3RFL41SND357856, Engine No.K10BN5158045 and registration No.TN12AT1739 seized by the respondent police in the Crime No.375 of 2025 dated 01.09.2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Naresh For Respondent(s): Mr.M.M.I.Khaleel Government Advocate Criminal Side https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1013 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 12 ORDER This Criminal Revision Case is filed to call for the records relating to the order dated 29.01.2026 passed in Crl.M.P. No.87 of 2026 by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Poonamallee, and to set aside the same and consequently direct the release of the four-wheeler Maruti S-Presso VXI(O) bearing Registration No. TN 12 AT 1739, Chassis No. MA3RFL41SND357856 and Engine No. K10BN5158045, and thus allow this Criminal Revision Case. 2.The facts of the case are that the Respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.375 of 2025 on the file of T-6 Avadi Police Station. During the course of investigation, the Respondent Police seized the four-wheeler Maruti S-Presso VXI(O) bearing Registration No. TN 12 AT 1739, Chassis No. MA3RFL41SND357856 and Engine No. K10BN5158045. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused, namely the husband of the Revision Petitioner, had allegedly committed the offence and that the said vehicle was taken into custody during the investigation. The Revision Petitioner, claiming to be the registered owner of the vehicle, filed Crl.M.P. No.87 of 2026 before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Poonamallee seeking interim custody of the vehicle. By order dated 29.01.2026, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1013 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 12 3.This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent. 4.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Revision Petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and is employed as a Physical Training Teacher. It is submitted that the vehicle was purchased on 03.06.2022, the date of her marriage, out of funds provided by her mother by paying a down payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and by availing a vehicle loan from Mahindra Finance, which is being repaid by the Revision Petitioner from her own earnings. It is further submitted that the Revision Petitioner has absolutely no connection with the alleged offence and that the vehicle was seized solely because the accused is her husband. 5.The learned counsel further submitted that the vehicle in question is not even referred to in the First Information Report and there is no material to establish that the Revision Petitioner has any role in the alleged offence. It is contended that the Trial Court dismissed the petition merely observing that there was "no change in circumstances", without considering the settled principles governing return of seized vehicles. Therefore, the rejection of the petition for return of the vehicle is unsustainable in law. Thus, the learned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1013 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 12 counsel seeks to quash the impugned order and to release the vehicle in question. 6.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submitted that from the date of seizure, the vehicle has been lying exposed to sun and rain in the custody of the Respondent Police and with the passage of time it is rapidly deteriorating. If the vehicle is not released immediately, it will lose its value and utility, resulting in irreparable financial loss to the Revision Petitioner, who is also continuing to discharge the loan liability. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638. 7.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the provisions of Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empower the Criminal Court to pass appropriate orders regarding custody and interim release of the seized property pending investigation or trial, 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1013 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 12 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) and the photograph or the videography taken under sub-section (3) shall be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Sanhita. (5)The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of thirty days after the statement has been prepared under sub-section (2) and the photograph or the videography has been taken under sub-section (3), order the disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery of the property in the manner specified hereinafter. 503. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.-(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1013 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 12 the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation." 8.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the Revision Petitioner is ready to comply with all the conditions, which the Court will impose, while releasing the vehicle in question. He further submits that indisputably, the Revision Petitioner is the rightful owner of the vehicle in question and therefore, the vehicle in question be released in his favour and the impugned order be quashed by this Honourable Court in the interest of justice. 9.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the vehicle in question was used in the commission of the offence under Section 304(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and therefore the Respondent Police had rightly seized the vehicle. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order and there is no illegality in the impugned order and hence, no interference by this Court is required. 10.I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the relevant legal provisions and the judgements rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and the judgement passed by the High Court in various cases. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1013 of 2026 __________ Page7 of 12 11.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, AIR 2003 SC 638 (supra) in para 17 and 21 has been pleased to held as under:- "17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of application for return of such vehicles. 21. However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. Are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This Object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly." 12.In Nand Vs. State of U.P., 1996 Law Suit (All) 423, the Allahabad High Court has observed that pendency of the confiscation proceedings under Section 72 of the U. P. Excise Act is not a bar for release of the vehicle which is required for the trial under Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act. It has been clearly observed by that Court in para 7, which is being produced as under:- "I think it is not proper to allow the truck to be damaged by remaining stationed at police station. Admittedly, the ownership of the truck is not disputed. The State of Uttar Pradesh does not claim its ownership. Therefore, I think it will be proper and in the larger interest of public as well as the revisionist that the revisionist gives a Bank guarantee of Rs. 2 lakhs before the C.J.M., Kanpur Dehat and files a bond that he shall be producing the truck as and when needed by the criminal courts or the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, and he shall not make any changes nor any variation in the truck." https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1013 of 2026 __________ Page8 of 12 13.The Allahabad High Court further has held in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P., 1992 AWC 1744 that mere pendency of confiscation proceedings before the Collector is no bar to release the vehicle. In Kamaljeet Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1986 U.P. Cri. Ruling 50 (Alld), the same view was taken by the Allahabad High Court that pendency of confiscation proceedings shall not operate as bar against the release of vehicle seized under Section 60 of Excise Act. 14.In the opinion of this Court, the power under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is not properly and widely used by the Trial Court, while passing the impugned order. The power conferred under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) be exercised by the trial court with judicious mind and without any unnecessary delay, so that the litigant may not suffer. Merely keeping the article in the custody of the Trial Court in the open yard will not fulfil any purpose and ultimately it results in the damage of the said property. The owner of the property should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the said property for the remaining period for which the property is being made as it is not in dispute that the Revision Petitioner is the owner of the seized Vehicle. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1013 of 2026 __________ Page9 of 12 15.Further, in the opinion of this Court, the procedure as contemplated under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) be also followed promptly, so that the concerned Court may take prompt decision for disposal of such properties and be released in favour of the entitled person of the said property. Keeping the said property in the custody of the Trial Court in the open yard will not solve any purpose and that gives a mental and financial torture to the owner of the said property which is also against the law and against the principles of natural justice. 16.As per the legal propositions mentioned above and keeping in view the facts that indisputably the Revision Petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle and that the ownership of the vehicle is not in dispute as neither the State or any other person has claimed their ownership over the vehicle, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the vehicle stationed at the Trial Court in the open yard for a long period, allowing it to be damaged with the passage of time. 17.In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court and the High Court referred to above, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and hence, it requires interference by this court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1013 of 2026 __________ Page10 of 12 18.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 passed in Crl.M.P. No.87 of 2026 by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Poonamallee, is set aside and reversed. 19.The learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Poonamallee, is directed to release the vehicle, namely Maruti S-Presso VXI(O) bearing Registration No. TN 12 AT 1739, Chassis No. MA3RFL41SND357856 and Engine No. K10BN5158045, forthwith in favour of the Revision Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: (i) The Revision Petitioner shall furnish a Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) before the Trial Court; (ii) The Revision Petitioner shall execute a bond to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; (iii) The Revision Petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the Trial Court or the Investigating Officer as and when required; (iv) The Revision Petitioner shall not alienate, encumber or create any third-party interest over the vehicle during the pendency of the criminal proceedings; (v) The Revision Petitioner shall not make any structural alteration or change the identity of the vehicle and shall maintain the vehicle in good condition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1013 of 2026 __________ Page11 of 12 2.There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Poonamallee, forthwith for necessary compliance. 07-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SHA To 1.The Inspector of Police, T6, Avadi Police Station, Chennai. 2.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Poonamallee. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1013 of 2026 __________ Page12 of 12 SHAMIM AHMED, J. SHA CRL RC No. 1013 of 2026 07-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis