O R D E R
Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner herein is the third party. The vehicle in question, namely a two wheeler having Registration Number TN 85 D 1022 was seized by the police for the offence under Section 319 IPC in Crime No.2674 of 2017 and out of two accused persons, the first accused was originally arrested and remanded to the Judicial custody at that time, and the owner for the vehicle has preferred this petition for return of the vehicle on the ground that the accused Nijanthan has asked for medical assistance and he gave the vehicle and therefore, sought the return of the vehicle, which was dismissed by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate on the ground that another accused is absconding and the matter is under investigation.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that subsequently, the accused, he was arrested was also granted bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate opposed the revision on the ground that the offences of this nature is on the rise, and that another accused is still absconding while the vehicle was used for committing the offence.
3
5. Considering the fact that the vehicle was used to commit the offence of chain snatching and A2 is still absconding and nature and gravity of the alleged offence, I am not inclined to grant the relief sought for in this revision.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
28.04.2018
nvi To
The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai
4
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,
nvi Crl.R.C.No.532 of 2018
28.04.2018