| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 5900
|
| Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court |
| Case No : CRL. RC. (MD). No. 1349 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. GUNASEKARAN |
| Parties : Gowthami Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by The Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, Tiruchirappalli |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: M/s. N. Ratchaka, Advocate. For the Respondent: D. Rajaboopathy, Government Advocate. |
| Date of Judgment : 11-08-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
BNSS - Section 438, Section 442 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 438 r/w 442 B.N.S.S.
- Section 497 of B.N.S.S.
- Section 310(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
2. Catch Words:
- Interim custody
- Seizure of vehicle
- Proof of ownership
3. Summary:
The petitioner, a registered owner of a two‑wheeler, filed a criminal revision against the order of the Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate that dismissed her request for the return of the seized vehicle. The vehicle had been seized in a robbery case under Section 310(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The respondent argued that returning the vehicle could facilitate further offences, while the petitioner contended that keeping it exposed would cause deterioration. The court held that the vehicle’s value would be compromised if left in open custody and therefore set aside the impugned order. It directed the vehicle’s interim return to the petitioner subject to a non‑refundable deposit, a bond with sureties, production of registration documents, an undertaking not to misuse the vehicle, and periodic production before the trial court. The order is limited to interim custody and does not prejudice the merits of the criminal prosecution.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 B.N.S.S., to call for the records passed in order dated 21.07.2026 by the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam in Crl.M.P.No.704 of 2026 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to return the petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-48-BF-8246 for interim custody.)
1. The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.704 of 2026 in Crime No.907 of 2025 dated 21.07.2026 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam, dismissing the petition filed under Section 497 of B.N.S.S.
2. The petitioner is claimed to be a registered owner of the vehicle namely Duke-200 Bike bearing Registration No.TN-48-BF-8246 and she is not an accused in this case. The respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.907 of 2025 for the offences under Section 310(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on 31.10.2025 and seized the said vehicle on the allegation that it was involved in the commission of robbery. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr.M.P.No.704 of 2026 for return of vehicle before the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam, and the same was dismissed on 21.07.2026.
3. The petitioner preferred this Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 21.07.2026 made in Cr.M.P.No.704 of 2026 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam, and to set aside the same.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent submitted that if the vehicle is returned to the petitioner, there is possibility for the vehicle being used for the commission of similar offence and objected to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petition mentioned two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-48- BF-8246 is owned by the petitioner and she is not an accused in this case and if the vehicle is kept in open place, the vehicle will get deteriorated and the value of the vehicle would automatically stand diminished and that therefore interim custody may be granted to the petitioner.
7. Considering the fact that if the vehicle is kept in open place exposing to sun and rain, the value of the vehicle will be deteriorated and no purpose will be served in keeping the vehicle in custody, this Court is inclined to allow the revision and thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 21.07.2026 passed in Cr.M.P.No.704 of 2026 by the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order dated 21.07.2026, passed in Cr.M.P.No.704 of 2026 by the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam, is hereby set aside and the vehicle viz., Duke-200 Bike bearing Registration No.TN-48-BF-8246, is ordered to be returned to the petitioner for interim custody, subject to proof of ownership and the result in confiscation proceedings, if any, and on the following conditions:-
(a) the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as nonrefundable to the credit of District Legal Services Authority, Trichy District;
(b) the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam;
(c) The petitioner shall produce the copy of Registration Certificate Book of the vehicle before the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam. If the original Registration Certificate Book is in the custody of the finance company, the petitioner shall produce a photocopy of the Registration Certificate Book, along with an affidavit stating that the original is with the finance company and a letter from the finance company acknowledging such custody.
(d) the petitioner shall give an undertaking before the respondent/ authority concerned stating that he will not use the vehicle in question for any illegal activities in future, failing which the respondent/trial Court is at liberty to confiscate the vehicle;
(e) the petitioner shall not alienate and shall not make any alteration in the vehicle;
(f) the petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the learned Trial Court once in a month i.e, on first working day of every English calendar month.
9. It is made clear that this order relates solely to interim custody of the vehicle and shall not be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution in Crime No.907 of 2025.
|
| |
