S.Daneshkumar v. The State Rep. By Sub Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN S.Daneshkumar S/o.Sekar, No. 147, 5th Cross Street, Bharathidasan Nagar, Shanmugapuram, Kolathur, Thiruvallur District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. By Sub Inspector of Police Ranipet PEW Police Station, Crime No. 53/2025.

..Respondent(s) Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 read with 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Arcot, Ranipet District Crl.M.P.No. 356/2025 dated 19.01.2026 for the return of TATA ACE XL BS IV bearing Regn No.TN-12-X- 3242 and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court.

For Petitioner(s):

M/S. D.Basker For Respondent(s):

MR.R.KISHORE KUMAR GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL SIDE)

ORDER

The revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's application seeking return of his vehicle viz., TATA ACE XL BS IV bearing Reg.No.TN-12-X-3242, which was seized during the course of investigation in

Crime No.53 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii) (B) read with Sections 25, 29(i) of NDPS Act, 1985.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused in the said case was illegally transporting 2.250 kilograms of Ganja and thus committed the offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) read with Sections 25, 29(i) of NDPS Act, 1985.

3. During the course of the investigation, the petitioner's vehicle, which was used by the accused, was seized. The petitioner sought return of vehicle, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not an accused; that he is the owner of the vehicle and therefore he is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle on any stringent conditions.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) confirmed the fact that the petitioner is not an accused in this case and that he is the owner of the vehicle, and that confiscation proceedings have been initiated.

6. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bishwajit Dey Vs. The State of Assam

reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the mere risk of misuse of the vehicle by a third party, by itself, is not sufficient to take coercive action of refusing the prayer, as the fear or suspicion is only a hypothetical situation. Apart from that, if the vehicle is not released, there is every possibility that it will be wasted to the vagaries of the weather. Further, its value will also reduce. Contrarily, putting the vehicle for beneficial utility and to earn livelihood and to use the vehicle for the benefit of the society at large, could be achieved by granting interim custody of the vehicle.

7. Accordingly, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and that the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle and not an accused, this Court is inclined to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to the result of the confiscation proceedings on the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Arcot, Ranipet District; (ii) The petitioner shall produce the original RC Book along with a self-attested Photostat copy of the RC Book of the vehicle and other relevant records to prove his ownership. The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Arcot, Ranipet District, shall peruse the RC book and other records, retain a xerox copy of the same and return the original RC book to the petitioner;

(iii) The petitioner shall not alter or alienate the vehicle in any manner;

(iv) The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that he will produce the vehicle as and when required by the respondent and by the Court below.

(v) The return of property would be subject to the result of the confiscation proceedings.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands allowed. 10-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order dpa To

1. The learned District Munsif-cum-JudicialMagistrate, Arcot, Ranipet District

2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

dpa 10-04-2026