Madras High Court
Senthilkumar vs State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police on 21 July, 2026
CRL RC No. 1464 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL RC No. 1464 of 2026
Senthilkumar
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
State Rep By,
The Inspector of Police
Kalamaruthur Police Station,
Kallakurichi District.
Crime No.124/2026
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER – This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 438
read with 422 of BNSS Act, to call for the records relating to the order dated
02-06-2026 passed in Crl MP No.677 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Ulundurpet, set aside the same and consequently direct the
respondent police to return the Hero Splendor Plus Motorcycle bearing
Registration No.TN-15-H-7697 to the Petitioner on interim custody pending
investigation in Crime No.124 of 2026.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K. Muruganandham
For Respondent(s): Mr.M.M.I.Khaleel,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed to call for the records relating to the
order dated 02-06-2026, passed in Crl.MP.No.677 of 2026, by the Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Ulundurpet, and to set aside the same and to release the Hero
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1464 of 2026
Splendor Plus Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-15-H-7697 and allow
this Criminal Revision Case.
2.The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of the Hero
Splendor Plus Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-15-H-7697, which was
used by the 1st accused, who is the friend of the petitioner, in selling liquor
bottles in public, illegally without proper license. The respondent police while
conducting an inspection on 16.05.2026, found that the 1st accused was in
possession of 4 bottles black pearl, 1 bottle of Vorion Tasmac liquor bottles in
the Motorcycle belonging to the petitioner, to sell them illegally to the public
without valid permission or licence. A case was registered in Crime No.124 of
2026, for the offences punishable under Section 4 (1) (i) of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition Act, and Section 4(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition
(Amendment) Act, 2024 against twopersons. Hence, the Revision Petitioner had
filed the above petition, seeking release of the said Vehicle, before the Trial
Court and by the impugned order, the Trial Court had dismissed the said
petition, refusing to release the said Vehicle. Hence, this Criminal Revision
Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, as stated
above.
3.This Court heard Mr.K. Muruganandham, the learned counsel for the
Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.M.Khaleel, the learned Government Advocate
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1464 of 2026
(Criminal Side) for the Respondent.
4.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the
Revision Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and that he had given
it to his friend, who is the 1st accused. The petitioner was not involved in the
above criminal case. The respondent Police had erroneously seized the
petitioner’s vehicle and arrayed the petitioner as 2 nd accused. The impugned
order of the court below in rejecting the application filed by the Revision
Petitioner, seeking return of the vehicle in question is not sustainable, as the
Revision Petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the Respondent
Police and that when the ownership of the vehicle in question is not in dispute,
the impugned order of the court below, refusing to return the vehicle, is not
sustainable. Thus, the learned counsel seeks to quash the impugned order and to
release the vehicle in question.
5.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that
from the date of seizure, the vehicle in question is kept in the custody of the
Trial Court in the open yard and with the passage of time, ultimately it will
become junk and after sometime, it is not useful for any purpose. The learned
counsel has relied on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR
2003 SC 638.
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1464 of 2026
6.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further drawn the
attention of this Court, regarding the provisions of Sections 497 and 503 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), 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.
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__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1464 of 2026property 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
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.”
7.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. Indisputably, the Revision
Petitioner is the rightful owner of the vehicle in question and therefore, the
vehicle in question be released in her favour and the impugned order be quashed
by this Honourable Court in the interest of justice.
8.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent
submits that the vehicle in question was involved in the offences under Sections
8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and hence, the vehicle in question was
correctly seized by the Respondent Police. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1464 of 2026
passed the impugned order and there is no illegality in the impugned order and
hence, no interference by this Court is required.
9.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.
10.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.”
11.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
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1464 of 2026
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.”
12.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.
13.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
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1464 of 2026
custody of the Trial Court in the open yard will not fulfil any purpose and
ultimately it result the damage of the said property. The owner of the property
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.
14.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 and keeping the same
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.
15.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.
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1464 of 2026
16.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.
17.Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the
impugned order, dated 02.06.2026, passed in Crl.MP.No.677 of 2026, by the
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ulundurpet, is set aside and reversed.
18.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ulundurpet, is directed to release the
vehicle in question forthwith in favour of the Revision Petitioner, on the
conditions that the Revision Petitioner shall give a bank guarantee of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) before the said Court and file
a bond that she shall be producing the vehicle in question as and when needed
by the concerned court and she shall not make any changes nor any variation in
the vehicle in question.
19.Let the copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for its
compliance and information by the Registry of this Court within one week from
today.
21-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
GSA
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1464 of 2026
SHAMIM AHMED J.
GSA
To
1.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
2.The Inspector of Police
Kalamaruthur Police Station,
Kallakurichi District.
3.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Ulundurpet.
CRL RC No. 1464 of 2026
21-07-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
