The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri METTU NIRANJAN REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4263 of 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is frled seeking the Court to quash the order dated 05.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.26 of 2O25 in Crime No.352 of 2024 of Afzalgunaj Police Station, Hyderabad and Consequently, prayed the Court to direct the concerned to release of the Car of the Petitioner vide Hyundai 12O vehicle bearing No.TS-O8-GV-O799 to the GPA Holder/father of the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner frled a petition before the trial Court vide Crl.M.P.No.26 of 2O25 in Crirne No.352 of 2024 under Section 497 read with 5O3 of BNSS, seeking interim custody of a Hyundai i2O vehicle bearing registration No.TS-O8-GV-O799. As per the prosecution, on 22.07.2O24 at approximately 17:50 hours, at the OGH parking lot located behind the mortuary at Afzalgunj, Hyderabad, the accused were found in possession of 1.3 kg of ganja, 1 gram of OG ganja weed, vehicles and ceII phones. Consequently, the pe titioner, along with other accused 2 SRS,J Crl-P.[o.4263 of 2()25 persons, is alleged to have committed offenses punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 2O(bXiiXB) and Section 27 of t}:,e NDPS Act.

3. After hearing both sides, the trial Court, by order dated

05.03.2025 dismissed the petition observing that the seized vehicle belonged to accused No. 1, who has been absconding since the registration of the case and is reportedly residing in the UK. The vehicle is now being claimed by his father through a General Power of Attorney (GPA). However, a GpA holder may not possess the legal authority to claim the vehicle on behalf of the owner under the NDPS Act. Granting custody of the seized vehicle to a GPA holder is generally barred unless there is a specific legal provision or Court order permittlng it. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner has ftled the present criminal petition.

4. Heard Sri M. Nira_njan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behall of the respondent - State. 3 sxs'., Crl.P.[o.4263 of 2025 I l.earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

5. petitioner is a law-abiding citizen who relocated to the United Kingdom in February 2O2l for better career opportunities and has been residing and working there since' In August 2024' the petitioner was shocked to learn of FIR No'354 of 2024 registered by the Afzalgunj Police under Sections 8(c) r/w 2O(bXiiXB) and 27 of the NDPS Act, falsely implicating him while also declaring him as absconding and seizing his vehicle bearing Registration No.TS-OS Gv-O799 ' He further submitted that the petitioner was not in India on the date of the alleged offence, and there is no material evidence Iinking him to the on unverified crime. The FIR appears to be based solely confessional statements of co-accused persons the Police registered the FIR and unlawfully seized the Petitioner's vehicle without following due process or statutory procedures under the BNSS, 2023' The vehicte was seized Despite this, from a parking area unrelated to the alleged offence and was not used for any illegal activity' The continuation of such proceedings against the Petitioner amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law. 4 SKS,J Crl.P.ro-4263 of 2025

6. learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the father of the petitioner, who holds a valid General Power of Attorney, had frled CrI.M.P. No.26 of 2025 seeking interim custody of tle vehicle on behalf of the Petitioner. However, the said petition was erroneously dismissed by the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge solely on the ground that a GPA holder may not claim the vehicle, despite settled judicial precedents permitting such interim relief. The Hontrle Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat r, and various High Courts including in Jagadish Kumar M v. State2, have held that seized vehicles should be returned to their rightful owners or authorized representatives to avoid unnecessary deterioration and hardship. The famill, of the petitioner, including a young child who frequently falls ill, has been severely alfected by the continued seizure of the vehicle. The petitioner is willing to comply with any condition for release, including furnishing an undertaking or bond, to ensure the vehicle is made available as required. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the order of the trial Court and ' zooz) io scc zs: Crl.P-no 1476 of 2019 2 5 sKs", Crl.P.fo..+ 3 of2()25 rL directthetrialCourttoreleasethesubjectVehiclebyallowing this criminal Petition.

7. On the otJrer hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that, since accused No' 1 is absconding, tJle seiznd' vehicle is essenLial for the investigation. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order of thetrialCorrrt.Further,theTrialCourthasrightlypassedttre order, and prayed to the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

8. Upon hearing submissions made by both learned counsel and reviewing the material available on record' the point for consideration in this petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the subject vehicle g. From the record, it appears that the case was registered against accused No.l, stating that 1'3 kgs of ganja were recovered from the subject vehicle' The case is currently at the initial stage, and the investigation remains incomplete As per Section 63 of the NDPS Act, during the trial of offences under 6 sKs,, cIl.P.no.4Xi3 of 2025 this Act, whether the accused is convicted, acquitted, or discharged, the Court is required to determine whether any article or item seized under the Act is liable to confiscation under Section 60,61, or 62. If it is found liable, the Court may order confiscation. Therefore, the decision regarding the disposal of the seized vehicle must occur within the scope of Sections 60, 61 , and 62 of the NDPS Act only after the conclusion of trial, not at this preliminary stage.

10. However, leaving the seized vehicle idle and exposed to rust and environmental damage could impair its usability. In the judgment of Sunderthai Ambalal Desai (supra), the District Judiciary was directed to dispose of case properties by issuing appropriate orders and conducting a panchanama before handing over possession. Such documentation can serye as evidence instead of physical production of the property before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence can also be recorded to detail the nature of the properly. t: I t 7 sKsJ c;rLP.llo.4 3 of 2O2S

11. Furthermore, the Honble Suprerne Court, in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam3, held that there is no specifrc bar or restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act preventing the interim release of a seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, pending disposal of the criminal case. In the absence of such a restriction under ttre NDPS Act and in light of Section 51 of the Act' Courts may invoke their general powers under SecLions 451 arrd. 457 CrPC for the interim release of seized vehicles' The trial Court retains discretion to release such vehicles in accordance with the laq/ and based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

12. In the present case, the petitioner is the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder for accused No' 1, who is the registered owner of the vehicle. Considering the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Jagadish Kumar M (supra) and other referenced judgments, to prevent deterioration of the vehicle due to prolonged exposure to environmental factors' interim custody of the vehicle can be granted to the petitioner' ' (2025) 3 sup.eme court cases 241 \ --- 8 sKs,J ciLP.lo.42li3 of 2025

13. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered r"iew that the trial Court should release the subject vehicle in favor of the petitioner (the GPA holder ald father of accused No.1), by imposing appropriate conditions to ensure compliance with the law.

14. In view thereof, this criminal petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 05.03.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.26 of 2025 in Crime No.352 of 2024 by Afzalgunj Police Station, Hyderabad. Further, the Trial Court is directed to release the subject vehicle to the petitioner, i.e., the GPA holder and father of accused No. l, subject to suitable conditions. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stald closed \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD'- A.JAYASREE SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFIC ER iltitttt+",u"+,iiri#,-+,.'frbitry$1;4Etag11,,o",uo,o ; il; d6. t" tn" Public Prosecutor for the State ot I Two CD Copies 6 SM/KR HIGH COURT DATED: 0110512025 ORDER CRLP.No.4263 of 2025 1HE .r / ,i.i R o e- o L) 29 JlJt zffi ,.\ I - . .:.:\1_ .:./' _5-/' I {t tt./,t ,/ 6 ,/^ , / ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION