The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, through, S.H.O. P.S. Munipally Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...Petitioner ...Respondent Cou n I for the Petitioner: SRI PALLE SRI HARINATH Gounsel for the Respondent: ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The C urt made the following: OROER o HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.602 of 2o25 ORDER: Challenging the order, dated 06.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.738 of 2025 in Crime No. 18 of 2025 ot P.S. Munipally, by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy (for short'trial Court'), this Criminal Revision Case is filed. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 497 of BNSS, 2023, seeking interim custody of the crime vehicle i.e., Bolero Vehicle bearing No.OD02B2873, was dismissed.

2. Heard Mr.P.Sri Harinath, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the crime vehicle and the same is necessary to meet his day-to-day needs. The trial Court observed that Section 52-A of the Act provides that vehicle has to be produced before the concerned authorities i.e., Drug Disposal Committee, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 63 of NDPS Act. ln support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme 2 ls, I Crl.n.C.No.6O2 of2025 Court in Bishwajit Dey vs..Sfate of Assam' and prayed tc allow the revision

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specilic allegations against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting triai by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this revision.

5. ln Bishwajit Dey (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para Nos.26, 27, 35 to 40 held as under-

26. This Court is further of the opinion that there rs no specrlic bar/restriclion under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transpofting narcotic drug or psychotropic sutlslance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case.

27. ln the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS Act and in view af Section 51 of the NDPS Acl, the Courl can invoke lhe general power under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. Consequently, the tial Court has the discretion lo release the vehicle in the inteim. However, lhis power would have to be exercised in acardance with law in the facts and circumstances of each case- 35. This Couft clarifies that the aforesaid drscusslon should not be taken as laying down a igid formula as it will be open to the trial Coutts to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant. Supreme Coui in simitar facts in Sainaba v. State of Kerataz, has released the vehicle. 36. ln the present case, th,.s Couft finds that after conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed in the Coui of Special Judge, NDPS Karbi Anglong. ln the said charge-sheet. neither the owner of the vehicle nor the driver has been arrayed as an accused. Only a third-pady occupant has been arrayed as an accused. The police after investigation has ' 2o2s scc tstja r ' 1zoza 1 it dicJrz, zozz SCC ontine SC 1784 I 3 ,s, , Crl.R.C.No.602 of2025 not found that the appellant i.e. the owner of the vehicle, has allowed his vehicle lo transpoft contraband drugs/substances with his knowledge or connivance or that he or his agent had not taken all reasonable precautions against such use. Consequently, the conveyance is entitled to be released on superdari. 37. ln fact, the Supreme Coud in similar facts in Sainaba v. State of Kerala (cited supra) has held as under (SCC paras 6-e) '6. The appellant has urged inter alia thal as per Seclion 36-C read with Section 51 of the NDPS Act, Criminal Procedure Code would be applicable for proceedings by a Special Court under NDPS Act and Section 451 has an inbuilt provision to impose any specific condition on the appellant while releasing the vehicle. The appellant is undoubtedly the registered owner of the vehicle but had not patlicipated in the offence as alleged by the prosecution nor had knowledge ol the alleged transaction.

7. The learned counse/ seeks to rely on the judgment of this Coud in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat opining that it is no use to keep such seized vehicle at police station for a long period and it is open to the Magistrate lo pass appropriate orders immediately by taking a bond and a guarantee as wel/ as security for relurn of the said vehicle. if required at any point of time.

8. On hearing the learned counsel for pafties and in the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the legal provisions referred aforesaid, we are of the view lhat this is an appropriate case for release of the vehicle on terms and condilions to be determined by the Special Courl 9. bear their own costs." The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving parties to lf the vehicle in the present case ls kepl in the cuslody of police till the trial is over, it will seNe no purpose.

38. fhrs Court is also of the view that if the vehicle in the presenl case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till lhe trial is over, it will seNe no purpose. -this Coud takes judicial notice thal vehicles in police custody are stored in lhe open. Consequently, if the vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce.

39. On the contrary, if the vehicle in queslion is released. it would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able to earn his livelihood), to the bank/financier (who woltld be repaid the loan drsbursed by it) and to the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be available for transpoflation of goods). 4 ls' I Crl.R.C.No.602 of 2025 Cortclusion 40. Consequently, the present criminal appeal is allowed with direction to the trial Coutl to release the vehicle in question in the inteitn on superdari after preparing a video and still photographs of the vehicle and after obtaining all information/documents necessa ry for identification of the vehicle, which shall be authenticated by the investigating officer, owner of the vehicle and accused by signing the same. Furiher, the appellant shall not sell or paft with the ownership of the vehicle till conclusion of the trial and shall fumish an undeiaking to the triat Coutt that he shall sunender the vehicle within one week of berng so directed and/or pay the value of the vehicle (determined according to income tax law on the date of ls release). if so ttlttnately directed by the Cout1.

6. ln view of the above said legal decision as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner this Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the order, dated 06.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.73B of 2025 in Crime No lB of 2025 of P.S. Munipally, by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy and the Station House Officer, P S. Munipally, is directed to produce the crime vehicle i e., Bolero Vehicle bearing No.OD02B2873 along with photographs of the vehicle before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the trial Court shall return the crime vehicle to the petitioner/owner of the vehicle as interim custody, on proper verification of ownership, subject to the following condrtions: 5 IS, I Crl.R C No.60? of 2075 (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court. (ii) The petitioner shall deposit all information/ documents necessary for identification of the vehicle, authenticated by the investigating officer, owner of the vehicle and accused by signing the same. (iii) The petitioner shall deposit the original Registration Certificate of the crime vehicle before the trial Court and the trial Court shall issue certified copy of Registration Certificate to the petitioner, to enable him to ply the vehicle on road without there being any hind rance. (iv) The petitioner shall not sell or part with the ownership of the vehicle till conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an undertaking to the trial Court that he shall surrender the vehicle within one week of being so directed and/or pay the value of the vehicle. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. SD/. A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S TION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate (Spl Mobile) Court, Sanga Reddy 2. The Station House Officer, Munipally Police Station, Sangareddy 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Palle Sriharinath, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies () ( s lHE S TA ? { JAN 2026 I .DriTCt I)7 HIGH COURT DATED: 2810812025 ORDER CRLRC.No.602 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRLRC @{"4 % &'-'