CRL RC/759/2026 of Bavani Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its, The Inspector of Police,

CRL RC No. 759 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-04-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL RC No. 759 of 2026 Bavani Petitioner(s) Vs State by, The Inspector of Police, PE-Wing, Cuddalore District. Cr.No. 204 of 2026. Respondent(s) PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 read with 442 of BNSS, 2023, t o call for the records relating to the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore in Crl.M.P.No.551 of 2026 dated 06.03.2026 filed by the petitioner under Section 503(1) of BNSS and set aside the same as illegal and entrust the interim custody of the vehicle ( Bus) bearing Registration Bearing No. NI-01-B-2592 to the petitioner, in the ma nner known to law by allow the above criminal revision case as prayed for. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 759 of 2026 ORDER The revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner’s application seeking return of her vehicle viz., Bus, Ashok Leyland Ltd., bearing Reg.No.NL-01-B-2592, which was seized during the course of investigation in Crime No.204 of 2026 registered for the offences under Sections 4(1)(c), 4(1) (A), 4(1-A)(ii) and Section 14A of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused in the said c ase was illegally transporting approximately 41 Brandy Bottles and thus commi tted the offence under Sections 4(1)(c), 4(1)(A), 4(1-A)(ii) and Section 14A of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. 3. During the course of the investigation, the petitioner’s vehicle, whi ch was used by the accused, was seized. The petitioner sought return of vehi cle, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitione r is not an accused; that she is the owner of the vehicle and therefore she is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle on any stringent conditions. 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 759 of 2026 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) confirmed the fact that the petitioner is not an accused in this case and that she is the owner of the vehicle, and that confiscation proceedings have been initiated. 6. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bishwajit Dey Vs. The State of Assam reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the mere risk of misuse of the vehicle by a third party, by i tself, is not sufficient to take coercive action of refusing the prayer, as the fear or suspicion is only a hypothetical situation. Apart from that, if the vehicle is not released, there is every possibility that it will be wasted to the vagarie s of the weather. Further, its value will also reduce. Contrarily, putting the vehicle for beneficial utility and to earn livelihood and to use the vehicle for the benef it of the society at large, could be achieved by granting interim custody of the vehicle. 7. Accordingly, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and that the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle and not an accused, this Court is inclined to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to the result of the confiscation proceedings on the following conditions: 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 759 of 2026 (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore; (ii) The petitioner shall produce the original RC Book along with a self-attested Photostat copy of the RC Book of the vehicle and other relevant records to prove his ownership. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore , 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. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands allowed. 06-04-2026 dpa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 759 of 2026 To 1. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore. 2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 759 of 2026 C.KUMARAPPAN J. dpa CRL RC No. 759 of 2026 06-04-2026 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis