(Prayer in CRL. RC. No. 521 of 2026: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 to set aside the impugned order dt. 18.12.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 2982/2025 in Cr.No. 356/2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu and consequently direct the respondent to return the seized vehicle namley Royal Enfield Bullet 350 Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. TN-11 BF 5544 to the petitioner and thereby render justice.

In CRL. RC. No. 523 of 2026: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 to set aside the impugned order dated 18.12.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2981 of 2025 in Cr.No.356 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu and consequentially direct the respondent to return the seized vehicle namely AUDI Q3 35 TDI QUATTRO BSIV car bearing registration No.TN-13-A-5677 to the petitioner.)

Common Order:

1. These two criminal revisions are filed challenging the orders dated 18.12.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 2982 and 2981 of 2025 in Cr.No. 356/2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu and consequently direct the respondent to return the seized vehicle namley Royal Enfield Bullet 350 Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. TN-11 BF 5544 and AUDI Q3 35 TDI QUATTRO BSIV car bearing registration No.TN-13-A-5677 to the petitioners.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.06.2024 at about 07.30 hours, when one Sadhasivam, Sub Inspector of Police was in station on duty, at that time, he received a call that two persons were kidnapped by the accused persons. After received the information, the Sub Inspector of Police went to the spot and found that the victims viz., Mohandhakumar and Ranjithkumar were injured at the spot and secured the victims’ and admitted the persons in the hospital. Later, on 03.06.2024 at 3.00 AM, the respondent police recorded the statement of the Victim Mohandakumar and he stated that he is residing at Sathya Nagar, Thirutheri and he is studying final year in the SRM college. Further, he is working as a part time job at Madras Engineering Private Limited. Both the victims are friends and they did not give the car to A1/Sathyaraj. Due to which, the first accused abused and assaulted the victims. Further, the accused persons took the victims into a secluded place, attacked them and caused injuries. Hence, the complaint.

3. Based on the complaint lodged by the victims, a case was registered against six persons including the petitioners (A1 & A2) in crime No.356 of 2024 for the offences under Section 147, 294(b), 341, 342, 323, 364, 307, 506(ii) read with 34 IPC alleging kidnapping for ransom. During investigation, the above AUDI Q3 35 TDI QUATTRO BSIV car bearing No.TN 13 A 5677 and Royal Enfield Bullet 350 Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No.TN 11 BF 5544 were seized on 03.06.2024 as it was allegedly used for the commission of offence. The petitioners are the owner of the above said vehicles and final report is yet to be filed. The petitioners have filed Crl.MP.Nos.2982 and 2981 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu and the same are dismissed vide order dated 18.12.2025 solely on the ground that the offence is grave in nature.

4. Aggrieved over the said orders, the petitioners have filed the present revisions before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the orders passed by the trial Court are non speaking orders and the said orders have been passed without application of mind. Mere gravity of offence is not a ground to deny interim custody. The vehicles have been in police custody for more than one year and two months. If the vehicle kept idle in open for long days, it will deteriorate and lose value. The learned counsel further submitted that preliminary investigation is over and therefore, no purpose served in further retention. Mere apprehension that the petitioners may use the vehicle for similar offence is a baseless supposition. The petitioners are ready to furnish the bond and surety. Hence, this Court may set aside the impugned orders and allow these petitions.

6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the offence is grave and sensational. If the vehicles are returned, the petitioners may alienate or use it for similar offence. Further, apart from this case, the first accused is involved in ten previous cases including the offence under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed both the cases which does not warrant any interference.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, in both the cases and perused the materials available on record.

8. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit in both the cases alleging that ten previous cases are pending against the first accused. The petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavits clarifying the same. On perusal of the rejoinder in Crl.RC.No.521 of 2026, in para 8 & 9, it is stated that the respondent has alleged that ten criminal cases have been registered against me. A bare perusal of the particulars furnished would reveal that, out of the said ten cases, only one case is presently pending trial before the Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu in SC.No.205 of 2021. The said case is presently at the stage of framing of charges, and I am diligently contesting the same through my counsel. In respect of the remaining cases, no Court has taken cognizance of the offence till date. Therefore, the respondents attempt to portray me as a habitual offender is misleading ad intended solely to prejudice this Court.

9. The respondent has alleged that the petitioners have approached this Court with unclean hands and have concealed material facts regarding previous cases in the petition filed by him before this Court. The said allegation is denied as false. The petitioners have disclosed all material facts to the best of their knowledge. The petitioners are trying to take an order from this Court by concealing the material facts that the first accused is involved in 10 previous cases which is very serious in nature. The petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hand and tried to justify all other cases that the petitioner/A1 was falsely implicated as he is a political person in local panchayat while replying the counter affidavit filed by the State/respondent. Apart from the merit, the conduct of the petitioners before this Court is not in fair, both are involved in the commission of the alleged offence using their vehicle in question.

10. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the alleged vehicle Viz. AUDI Q3 35 TDI QUATTRO BSIV and Royal Enfield Bullet 350 Motor Cycle were used for commission of the alleged kidnapping of the defacto complainant for ransom. The offence alleged is grave and also sensational in nature. If the case properties are returned to the petitioner at this stage, there is every possibility that the petitioners may alienate/dispose the same and may involve the alleged vehicles in the same and similar kind of offence. Further, final report is yet to be filed. The vehicle is a material object required for trial.

11. Considering the gravity of offence, stage of investigation, there are 10 previous cases pending against the first accused and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that the revision cases cannot be allowed at this stage. This Court do not find any justification to pass an order to release the vehicles in question whereas the allegation against the petitioners instead of kidnapping of the persons by using the afore said vehicles which is also very serious in nature.

12. In the result, both the criminal revision cases are dismissed.