JUDGMENT : 1. On the complaint lodged by Anna Mayil, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam Taluk Circle, Madurai, initially a case in Crime No.386 of 2017 was registered on 21.11.2017 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 333, 324, 506(ii), 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 against Karuppasamy and Karmegam and thereafter, the same was altered into one under Sections 341, 294(b), 333, 324, 506(ii), 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 r/w 201, 212, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, adding nine other persons as accused. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that Karuppasamy and Karmegam were in inebriated state and when the Inspector of Police was on rounds, she found them causing disturbance to the public. When the Inspector of Police questioned the duo, they seem to have indiscriminately attacked the police party and escaped. During the course of investigation, the police learnt that the duo are Army Personnel and intimation was sent to the concerned Army Command. On the directions of the Army Command, the duo surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai on 07.12.2017 and were taken into custody. After 34 days of incarceration, they were granted bail in Crl.M.P.No.7089 of 2017 on 09.01.2018 by the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. 3. It appears that, during the course of investigation, the police have recovered the Indian Armed Forces Identity Card of Karuppasamy (A-1) and his Leave Certificate and both these documents have been produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam. The petitioner filed Cr.M.P.No.497 of 2018 under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for return of the Army Identity Card and the Leave Certificate, which has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam on 09.02.2018, aggrieved by which, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent. 5. The Trial Court has dismissed the petition for return of the two documents on the ground that those two documents are required to establish the identity of the accused during trial, since these documents were recovered at the place of occurrence by the police. 6. 5. The Trial Court has dismissed the petition for return of the two documents on the ground that those two documents are required to establish the identity of the accused during trial, since these documents were recovered at the place of occurrence by the police. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already suffered 34 days of incarceration and without the Identity Card, he cannot even report to the Army Headquarters. 7. This Court has to strike a harmonious balance between the claim of the police and the requirement of the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will not dispute his identity nor dispute the fact that the Identity Card and the Leave Certificate were recovered at the place of occurrence, as contended by the police. 9. If that is so, the petitioner is directed to file an affidavit before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam that (a) he will not dispute the fact that he is an Army Personnel issued with Identity Card No.C994134 ; No.14928819A; (b) he will not dispute the place of recovery of both the documents, as projected by the