Ravi v. State Rep.By, Sub Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

1. Ravi Rep. By GPA Holder, Mr.Vikram Mujalde Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State rep.by, Sub Inspector of Police Shoolagiri Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):

M/s.M.P.Saravanan For Respondent(s):

Dr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The Criminal Revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's application filed under Section 497 of BNSS seeking return of his vehicle, namely Tata Benz Lorry, bearing Registration No. RJ-09-GC-0070. 2.

An FIR was registered on 21.10.2020 in Crime No.964 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC on the allegation that there was a discrepancy between the engine number mentioned in Form-95 and that of the vehicle.

3.

During the course of investigation, the four-wheeler belonging to the petitioner, namely Tata Benz Lorry bearing Registration No. RJ-09-GC-0070, was seized on 11.01.2021. The petitioner sought return of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that the vehicle was liable for confiscation and that confiscation proceedings had already been initiated. 4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle has been lying idle in an open place in the police station ever since its seizure, resulting in continuous deterioration and loss of value, and if not released, it would be reduced to scrap. He further submitted that no confiscation proceedings have, in fact, been initiated; that the petitioner, being the owner, is entitled to interim custody; and that he is willing to comply with any conditions imposed by this Court.

5.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), on instructions, submits that the vehicle is presently secured in the police station; that it is not required for the purpose of investigation any longer; that no confiscation proceedings have been initiated till date; and that there are no previous criminal cases pending against the petitioner.

6.

In the light of the above submissions, this Court is of the view that the vehicle cannot be kept idle in an open space and its value cannot be allowed to

be diminished as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and therefore, he is the proper person entitled to the interim custody of the vehicle.

7.

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Hosur, in Crl.M.P.No.999 of 2025 in Crime No.964 of 2020 is set aside. In view of the same, the respondent is directed to return the vehicle viz., Tata Benz Lorry, bearing Registration No. RJ-09-GC-0070 to the petitioner on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) with two sureties for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Hosur;

(ii) The petitioner shall produce the original RC Book along with a selfattested Photostat copy of the RC Book of the vehicle and other relevant records to prove his ownership. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Hosur, 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, if any.

19-12-2025 skr Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.State rep.by, Sub Inspector of Police Shoolagiri Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

SUNDER MOHAN J.

skr 19-12-2025