The High Court · 2025

praying that in the circumstances riminal Petition, the High Court may Order dated 02.04.2025, passed in ow pending vide C.C No 62412025) gistrate of First Class at Jagtial and lJudicial Magistrate of First Class at ift Dzire-VDl(0), bearing Registration endency of the criminal proceedings, er order or orders may deem fit and This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the ltlemorandum of ing the arguments of Mr. Gaje Raghu, er Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public langana, Hyderabad on behalf of the Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hea Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Jithen Prosecutor, High Court for the State of T State/Respondent. The Court made the following: ORD R n*7 ,.] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7097 ot 2025 ORDER This petitron is filed under Section 528 oI Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short'the BNSS'), seeking quashment of the impugned docket order dated 02.04.2025 passed in Crl.M P.No.104 of 2O25 in Crime No.56 ol 2025 (now pending vide C.C.No.624 of 20251 by the learned ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial, against the petitioner herein and consequently direct the learned ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial to return the property i.e., Maruti Swift Dzire-VDl (O), bearing Registration No.TS-09- EP-4569

2. I have heard Mr.G.Raghu, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that, the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TS-09-Ep-4569 and that vehicle was seized by the lnvestigating Agency in connection with Crime No. 56 of 2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 137(21 and 1 15(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNS'). Upon filing an application for interim custody of the vehicle, the trial Court, after examining the matter on its I I 2 ) merits, dismissed the petition by obse ng that, releasing the vehicle at this stdge could lead to tampering with c ucial evidence

4. Learned counsel for the petitione submitted that, according to the averments in the complaint, the vehicle n question was allegedly used in the commission of an offence involvin the kidnapping of the de facto complainant's son. However, he point d out that the investigation has since been concluded and charge sheet has already been filed before the Court, retaining the vehicle in the cu tody of the police or the Court serves no further purpose. Moreover, prolonged idleness may lead to deterioration of the vehicle's condition thereby affecting its functional efficacy. He further submitted that the Peti oner is willing to comply with any conditions that may be imposed bY t e Court for the grant of interim custody. He contended that, in light of e pleadings and the fact that the investigation has concluded, the Trial ourt ought to have exercised its drscretion to release the vehicle to he petitioner. ln support of his argument, he relied on an order Pass d by a coordinate bench of this Hon'ble Court in Crl.P. No.3126 of 2 27, wherein interim custody of a similarly situated vehicle was granted e therefore prayed for direction to release of the vehicle on interim custod

5. Learned Additional Public Prose utor, on the other hand, submitted that the trial Court had duly conside passed the impugned order, citing t witnesses, which could prejudice e evidence- However, he fairlY the petition on its merlts and I potential risk of tampering wit\ I ! I 'i=!s.#r conceded that the present petition may be considered independenfly on its own merits. 6. 7. The petitioner has submitted photocopies of the vehicle's lhave perused the materials on record. registration certificate to substantiate his claim of ownership. Notably, this claim is not disputed by the prosecution. The record clearly reflects that the vehicle in question was seized by the police during the investigation of a kidnapping case. lt is also an undisputed fact that the investigation has been completed and a charge sheet has been filed. 8. Furthermore, there is no specific averment from the prosecution, either before the Trial Court or in the present proceedings, asserting that the continued custody of the vehicle is essential for securing any further evidence, except possibly for the purpose of identification during the course of trial. L ln light of the foregoing circumstances and guided by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v State of Gujarat : [(2002) 10 SCC 283], and considering \ \ the rationale that allowing the vehicle to remain idle amounts to a waste of national resources, this Court is of the considered opinion that granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner, subject to appropriate safeguards, is just and proper. As the Trial Court failed to adequately address these material aspects, this Court finds sufficient grounds to interfere with and set aside the impugned order 4 ,a Accordingly, the impugned order is qu shed. The Trial Court is directed to release the vehicle in question to th petitioner, subject to the following conditions: (a) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh onlY) with one surety for a like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (b) The petitioner shall also file a affidavit before the Trial Court undertaking not to tamper with the vehi e in any manner and to Produce the same before the Court as and whe required during the trial (c) The Trial Court shall verify the nership documents submitted bY the petitioner and release the vehicl under proper acknowledgment, ensuring compliance with the above co ditions

10. ln the above terms, this Criminal etition is allowed Miscellaneous petitions, Pending any, shall stand closed SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR To, //TRUE C Yil r\r SECTION OFFICER

1. The ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of 2. The Station House Officer, pegadapalli 3. One CC to Sri. Gaje Raghu, Advocate 4 9ng CC to the public prosecutor, High Hyderabad [OUT] irst Class at Jagtial olice Station, Jagitial District OPUC] ourt for the State of Telangana,

5. Two CD Copies. PSK /PSL II l 1HE SIAI s t). !) t o t) t 13 IUB \11( a) HIGH COURT DATED:1710612025 ORDER CRLP.No.7097 ol 2025 /2. <r,// ,/e, ALLOWED THE CRIMINAL PETITION