Dharman Vs State rep by its

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 483 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 14.03.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.476 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – II, Hosur.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef

¶14

For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Kishore Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner’s application

¶17

seeking return of his vehicle viz., TATA Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-70-AM-6034, which was seized during the course of investigation in Crime No.13 of 2024 registered for the offences under Section 379 of IPC.

¶18

1

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

CRL RC No. 581 of 2026

¶21

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused in the said case was

¶22

transporting approximately 2 units of red soil without valid authorization and thus committed the offence under Section 379 IPC .

¶23

During the course of the investigation, the petitioner’s vehicle, which

¶24

was used by the accused, was seized. The petitioner sought return of vehicle, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner

¶26

is not an accused; that he is the owner of the vehicle and therefore he is entitled to interim custody of the vehicle on any stringent conditions.

¶27

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) confirmed the fact that

¶28

the petitioner is not an accused in this case and that he is the owner of the vehicle, and that confiscation proceedings have been initiated.

¶29

6.It is also relevant to refer that while registering FIR, only IPC offence

¶30

has been incorporated, without charging the petitioner under the Mines and Minerals Act.

¶31

2

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

CRL RC No. 581 of 2026

¶34

7.At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble

¶35

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

¶36

mere risk of misuse of the vehicle by a third party, by itself, 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 vagaries 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 benefit of the society at large, could be achieved by granting interim custody of the vehicle.

¶37

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:

¶38

(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, Hosur ;

¶39

(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, Hosur , shall peruse the RC book and other records, retain a xerox copy of the same and return the original RC book to the petitioner;

¶40

3

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

CRL RC No. 581 of 2026

¶43

(iii) The petitioner shall not alter or alienate the vehicle in any manner;

¶44

(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.

¶45

(v) The return of property would be subject to the result of the confiscation proceedings.