Facts
The petitioner, the registered owner of a Kia car, sought interim custody of the vehicle seized in Crime No.218 of 2026.
Source reference: paras. 1–4, pp. 2–3The prosecution alleged that the petitioner used it to possess 552 bottles of liquor, leading to registration of offences under Sections 4(1)(A), 4(i)(C) and 14-A of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024.
Source reference: paras. 1–4, pp. 2–3The petitioner asserted that he had bought the liquor from TASMAC for a family ceremony and that continued storage of the car in the open would diminish its value.
Source reference: paras. 1–4, pp. 2–3The Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, refused custody; the petitioner challenged that order in revision.
Source reference: paras. 1–4, pp. 2–3Issues
Whether the petitioner should be granted interim custody of the seized vehicle pending investigation and any confiscation proceedings.
Source reference: paras. 5–8, pp. 3–6Whether interim custody could be granted subject to conditions sufficient to protect the prosecution’s interests and ensure the vehicle remained available to the Trial Court.
Source reference: para. 8, pp. 5–8Law Applied
The revision was brought under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Source reference: prayer, p. 1The Court stated that a court deciding interim custody may determine who should have possession without deciding title, with the object of preventing deterioration and loss of value of the property, relying on Krishnan Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 INSC 748.
Source reference: para. 6, p. 4It further relied on Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241, and S. Selvaraj v. Inspector of Police, Crl.R.C.(MD) No.374 of 2020, for the power to impose conditions—including deposit of an amount—when entrusting interim custody.
Source reference: para. 7, pp. 4–5The Court also referred to M/s. ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 INSC 940, and the Madras High Court decisions listed in paragraph 8 in support of conditional release.
Source reference: para. 8, pp. 5–6Reasoning
The alleged occurrence was on 6 June 2026, and the Court considered that a substantial part of the investigation might have been completed by the time the revision was heard.
Source reference: paras. 5–8, pp. 3–8Given the asserted risk of deterioration while the car remained in custody, the Court found interim release appropriate.
Source reference: paras. 5–8, pp. 3–8It addressed the prosecution’s concerns about alienation, alteration or misuse by requiring a deposit, bond and sureties, proof of ownership, an undertaking against illegal use, restrictions on dealing with or altering the vehicle, and production of the vehicle when required.
Source reference: paras. 5–8, pp. 3–8It also directed the Investigating Officer to document the vehicle’s condition by panchnama, photographs and videography before release.
Source reference: paras. 5–8, pp. 3–8Holding
The Court allowed the revision, set aside the Magistrate’s order and granted the petitioner interim custody of the Kia car, upon proof of ownership and subject to any confiscation proceedings and the specified conditions.
It clarified that the order did not express an opinion on the merits of the prosecution or ultimate liability for confiscation.
Source reference: para. 9, p. 8Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232
Original Court PDF
M.SaravananvsState Of Tamilnadu Rep By In
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
