CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON: 05.10.2026

DELIVERED ON: 16.10.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MURUGESAN

CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

CNR:{HCMD011200232026}

Vignesh

..Petitioner

Vs

State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Sub Inspector Of Police,

Fort

Fort Police Station,

Trichy District.

(Crime No. 168 of 2026)

..Respondent

PRAYER:Criminal Revision filed under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS to

call for the records and SET ASIDE the impugned order passed in

C.M.P.No.7998 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1,

Tiruchirappalli dated 12.08.2026 and allow the Criminal Revision

Petition and thus render justice.

For Petitioner: M/s. R. Sangeetha

For Respondent: Mrs.V.Moushica,

Counsel for State of TN(Crl.side)

__________

Page 1 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

ORDER

Heard and admitted.

02. With the consent of both parties, this criminal revision was

taken up for final hearing on 05.10.2026.

03. Claiming an order setting aside the dismissal order dated

12.08.2026 of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirappalli, hereinafter

referred to as ‘the trial court’ for the sake of brevity, passed in C.M.P

No.7998/2026, an application filed by the revision

petitioner/petitioner/accused under S.497 r/w S.503 BNSS for an order

granting him interim custody of a vehicle, Kia Carens Clavis Car,

bearing registration number TN 68 AT 1372 (Engine

No.D4FASM548042 and Chassis No.MZBGB813LSN), and two

mobile phones, iPhone 16 Plus and One Plus Nord 2T 5G, the

properties in RP No.106/2026 involved in Cr No.168/2026 under S.420

IPC, on the file of Fort Crime Police Station, Tiruchirappalli Town, the

revision petitioner/ petitioner/ accused has filed this Criminal Revision

Petition under S.438 BNSS.

__________

Page 2 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

04. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in this

criminal revision, 'the revision petitioner' and 'the revision respondent',

unless the context otherwise requires.

05. Sans minute details, the case of the revision petitioner in the

trial court is that a vehicle, Kia Carens Clavis Car, bearing registration

number TN 68 AT 1372 (Engine No.D4FASM548042 and Chassis

No.MZBGB813LSN), and two mobile phones, iPhone 16 Plus and

One Plus Nord 2T 5G, are said to have involved in Cr No.168/2026

under S.420 IPC on the file of Fort Crime Police Station, that in

pursuance of such registration of the criminal case, the aforesaid

properties have been seized by the respondent police, that the aforesaid

properties are now in the interim custody of the respondent police but

without proper care or maintenance, that the aforesaid properties, if left

idle without proper maintenance, would become useless and ruined and

that therefore, the interim custody of the aforesaid properties needs to

be granted to the revision petitioner being the owner thereof.

06. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the revision

respondent in the trial court is that the investigation is still pending,

__________

Page 3 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

that if the properties concerned are returned to the revision petitioner,

they would be used for the commission of similar offence or they

might be sold by the revision petitioner and that therefore, this criminal

miscellaneous petition seeking such interim custody of the properties

concerned deserves for dismissal.

07. Neither the revision petitioner nor the revision respondent

has chosen to lead any evidence, either oral or documentary, before the

trial court.

08. On enquiry, the trial court has dismissed the criminal

miscellaneous petition in Crl MP No.7998/2026 on the finding that if

the properties concerned are returned to the revision petitioner, they

would be used for the commission of similar offence or they might be

sold by the revision petitioner.

09. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that

the dismissal of the claim of interim custody of the properties is not

only against law but also against the settled principles on such grant of

interim custody of the properties, that the trial court, without due

application of its judicial mind, has simply accepted the objections

__________

Page 4 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

raised by the revision respondent and thereby dismissed the criminal

miscellaneous petition in mechanical manner, that therefore, the order

of the trial court is obviously liable to be interfered with and that

therefore, this criminal revision petition, in the interest of justice, needs

to be allowed, setting aside the order of the trial court and thereby

granting the interim custody of the properties concerned.

10. Learned counsel for the State (Crl Side) appearing for the

revision respondent would submit that this is a case where the

petitioner is alleged to have cheated several persons by promising

employment abroad, that the investigation has disclosed further

complaints of similar in nature, that the properties, particularly, the

mobile phones, would have played a vital role in the offence

concerned, that the mobiles phones are required for scientific analysis,

that if the properties concerned are returned to the revision petitioner,

they would be used for the commission of similar offence or they

might be sold by the revision petitioner, that therefore, the order of the

trial court is lawful and perfect and that therefore, this criminal

revision petition deserves for dismissal in limine.

11. Heard both sides, and perused all material records.

__________

Page 5 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

12. On careful consideration of the criminal revision petition

filed by the revision petitioner, the counter filed by the revision

respondent, the related material records and the submissions made on

both sides, this court formulates the following point for determination:

Whether the revision petitioner is entitled to get

such order setting aside the dismissal order dated

12.08.2026 of the Judicial Magistrate No.I,

Tiruchirappalli, passed in Crl MP No.7998/2026, an

application filed by the revision

petitioner/petitioner/accused under S.497 r/w S.503

BNSS for an order granting him interim custody of a

vehicle, Kia Carens Clavis Car, bearing registration

number TN 68 AT 1372 (Engine No.D4FASM548042

and Chassis No.MZBGB813LSN), and two mobile

phones, iPhone 16 Plus and One Plus Nord 2T 5G, the

properties in RP No.106/2026 involved in Cr

No.168/2026 under S.420 IPC on the file of Fort Crime

Police Station, Tiruchirappalli Town, as prayed for?

13. The Point

(1) S.497 BNSS deals inter alia with the custody of the property,

produced before a criminal court, pending investigation, inquiry or

trial. S.498 BNSS deals inter alia with the delivery of the property,

produced before a criminal court, at the conclusion of investigation,

__________

Page 6 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

inquiry or trial. S.503 BNSS deals inter alia with the delivery of the

property, not produced before a criminal court.

(2) S.497 BNSS would read as under:

497. Order for custody and disposal of property

pending trial in certain cases.

(1) When any property is produced before any

Criminal Court or the Magistrate empowered to take

cognizance or commit the case for trial during any

investigation, inquiry or trial, the Court or the Magistrate

may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody

of such property pending the conclusion of the

investigation, 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 or the Magistrate 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

__________

Page 7 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

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 property in the

manner specified hereinafter.

(3) S.498 BNSS (relevant provisions thereof) would read as

under:

498. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial.

(1)When an investigation, inquiry or trial in any

criminal case is concluded, the Court or the Magistrate

may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by

destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person

claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise,

of any property or document produced before it or in its

custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have

been committed, or which has been used for the

__________

Page 8 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

commission of any offence.

(2)An order may be made under sub-section (1) for

the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be

entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or

on condition that he executes a bond, with or without

securities, to the satisfaction of the Court or the

Magistrate, engaging to restore such property to the Court

if the order made under sub-section (1) is modified or set

aside on appeal or revision.

…………..

…………..

(4) S.503 BNSS (relevant provision thereof) would read as

under:

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 Sanhita, 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.

…………

(5) Therefore, it is clear that S.497, S.498 and S.503 BNSS deal

with the custody or delivery, as the case may be, of the property

__________

Page 9 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

involved in a criminal case, and such claim of custody or delivery can

be made by a person entitled to the possession thereof.

(6) One vehicle and two mobile phones are said to have involved

in this case on hand and accordingly, the aforesaid properties have

been seized by the police.

(7) On careful study on the order dated 12.08.2026 of the trial

court passed in Crl MP No.7998/2026, this court finds that the trial

court has dismissed the aforesaid application filed under S.497 BNSS

on the ground that if the properties concerned are returned to the

revision petitioner, they would be used for the commission of similar

offence or they might be sold by the revision petitioner.

(8) With regard to the mobile phones, a serious objection has

been raised on the side of the revision respondent to the effect that the

mobiles phones are required for scientific analysis. Therefore, this

court is concerned with interim custody of the vehicle only.

__________

Page 10 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

(9) At this juncture, this court would like to refer to the decision

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V State of

Gujarat ((2002) 10 SCC 283) and the relevant portion thereof would

read 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 applications for return of such

vehicles.'

(10) Selvam V State by Inspector of Police (2012 (1) MWN

(Cr) 288) is also a case where this court, while dealing with the return

of a vehicle to the claimant/accused, has held as under:

'6……………, it would be seen that in

directing return of vehicles, even to Accused persons, in

the manner contemplated in the decisions of the Apex

Court of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V State of Gujarat,

2003 (1) CTC 175 and General Insurance Council and

others V State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2010 (6)

SCC 768, no trampling of powers bestowed upon the trial

Courts under Section 452 CrPC is involved. Therefore, it

would be fit and proper to deal with applications seeking

__________

Page 11 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

return of vehicles without being clouded with the vision of

the claimant being an Accused.'

(11) Incidentally, this court would like to refer to the recent

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.Manimaran V State of

Tamil Nadu (2026 INSC 946), where it has been held as under:

‘13. It cannot be forgotten that the vehicle kept in

the custody of the Police or the Court, during the pendency

of the trial, may deteriorate and become unusable in the

long run.’

(12) It is therefore clear that keeping a vehicle involved in an

offence, either in police station or in court, for a long time is not

warranted and that an application seeking the interim custody of the

vehicle needs to be dealt with judiciously and expeditiously, regardless

of the fact that the applicant is the accused in the offence concerned.

(13) Resultantly, this court holds that the revision petitioner is

entitled to get the interim custody of the vehicle, but not of the mobile

phones, in such terms as detailed hereunder, and this point is decided

accordingly.

14. In the result,

__________

Page 12 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

(1) that this criminal revision petition filed by the revision

petitioner/ petitioner/accused is hereby partly allowed only with respect

to the vehicle, Kia Carens Clavis Car, bearing registration number TN

68 AT 1372 (Engine No.D4FASM548042 and Chassis

No.MZBGB813LSN),

(2) that the order dated 12.08.2026 of the Judicial Magistrate No.

I, Tiruchirappalli, in CMP.No.7998/2026 is hereby reversed only with

respect to the vehicle,

(3) that the criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl MP

No.7998/2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I,

Tiruchirappalli, is hereby allowed only with respect to the vehicle but

on the conditions,

(i) that the revision petitioner/petitioner/accused

shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-

with two sureties for the like sum each to the

satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No. I,

Tiruchirappalli,

(ii) that the revision petitioner/petitioner/accused

shall file into the court of the Judicial Magistrate No. I,

Tiruchirappalli, the photographs showing all the four

sides of the vehicle along with the original registration

certificate, and

__________

Page 13 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

(iii) that the revision petitioner/petitioner/accused,

in view of the prayer of ‘interim custody’, shall execute

an undertaking, in the form of an affidavit, before the

Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tiruchirappalli, to the effect

that he shall produce the vehicle, as it is, before the

court as and when directed,

(4) that the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tiruchirappalli, is hereby

directed to hand over the vehicle concerned to the revision

petitioner/petitioner/accused only after the compliance by the revision

petitioner/petitioner/accused of the aforesaid conditions, and

(5) that this criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed with respect

to the mobile phones, iPhone 16 Plus and One Plus Nord 2T 5G.

16-10-2026

Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

GNS

__________

Page 14 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1,

Tiruchirappalli.

2.The Sub Inspector Of Police, Fort

Fort Police Station,

Trichy District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

__________

Page 15 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

B.MURUGESAN, J.

GNS

Pre-Delivery Order made in

CRL RC(MD) No. 1472 of 2026

16-10-2026

__________

Page 16 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis