Ayesha Paryeen v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a order or directlon more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, direct the Respondents, more particularly Respondent No. 3, lrlspec_to_1 of Police ACB _Q_lU, Hyderabad, to verify the genuineness of the property surety/solvency documents submitted in Crl.tvl.P. No. 400 of 2025 tn connection with Crime No. 01/RCO.ACB-CIUl2O24 and to submit the,verification report on or before 15-10-2025, in compliance with the orders passed by the Honble Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P. No.319of2025. _-counselfor-thefetitioner:€RlJ);-KULASHEKHAR- Counsel for the Respondents No 1 &22 AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No 3 : SRI T. BALA MOHAN REDDY .--SPECnI.?UBEIGPROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER CUM STANDING COUNSEL.FOR ACB IIONOURABLE SRI JT'STICT N.V.SHRAVAN KT'MAR Writ Petltion No.31O19 oF 2025 ' ORDER: '[his writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: "...pleased. to issue a order or direction nlore particutarlg one in the nahtre of wit of nyondamuq direct the t?espond.ents, more partianlarlg Respondent No. 3, Inspector of Polbe, ACB, Cru, Hgderabad, to uerifu tte genuineness of the propertg surety/soluency doanments submitted in CrI.M.p, No. ,tOO of 2025 in connection uith Crimi.No. OI/RCO-ACB- Cru/ 2024 and to submit the uerifiention report on or before l5-1O-2O25, in compliance uith the orders passed. bg the Ilonble Pincipal Special Judge for SPE ana ACn Cases, Ityderabad. in CrI.M.P- No. 319 of 2025...." il. Heard learned counsel for the,petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respon(lent Nos.l and 2; Mr.T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned special Public Prosecutor cum Standing counsel for ACB appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. with their consent, this writ petition is taken up for disF,osal.

3. The facts of the case in brief as stated are that in connection with or.No.o1lRco-cl ]-ACB/2024, petitioner,s vehicle bearing registration No.TG or N oozz was illegally seized by respondent authorities on 01.05.2025, though the vehicle was lawfully owned e? ;2i. and registered in the name of petitioner. I[ is submitted that despite the petitioner having no connection with the a[leged crime, the petitioner's vehicle was seized arid kept in the custody of respondent No.3. The Petitioner previously apploached the Special Judge for spE and ACB cases, Hyderabad under Section 4s1 cr.p.c., uid"e :ustody of the said vehicle, however, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved-, by the szune, petitioner filed crl.P.No.7765 of 2025 and this courtl,ui.d.eorder dated Lo.o6.2o25 set aside the said dismissal order directing the special Judge for SpE and :-: ACB cases to consider the case of the'petitioner afresh. pursuant to the order of this court,,petitionel. fil9d crt.M.p.Nos.3 lg & 342 of 2o2s : -:1-1.- ' before the Special Judge and comptied u.ith all conditions including furnishing a personal bond for Rs.5o,oo,0oo/- and also submitted solvency documents. Accordingly, the Trial court directed Respondent No.3 to veri& the solvency documents and submit verification report, but despite repeated follow-ups, no verification , report has been submitted. This delay has resulted in the vehicle being left unused and exposed to weather, causing deterioration and (' financial loss, as it is critical to the petitioner's business operations. Questioning the inaction of respondent No.3, the present writ petition is filed. i I .,' I 1 i |,: i l , I ! i tI I I I I I t I I I i The learned Special Public Prosecutor-cum-Standing . .:. _ ::3:: t t for ACB, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3, submits :that the Court of the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, vide order memo Dis.No.457/PSJ-ACB-Hydl2Q25 dated

24.09 2025, directed Respondent No.3 to conduct an enquiry into tJ e genuineness of the surety propert5r located at Khanapur,. Nirmal Distri<:t and lile the report at the earliest. The said propert5r, was offerecl as security for interim custody of the said. On enquiry, it is , reveal,:d that the said prop5:rty was obtained under mortgage with Andhra Bank. It is further submitted that there are overdue amounts to be payable by the petitioner with regard to the loans. Learned Specia.l Public Prosecutor submits. that a copy of the report ,has already been served on the learned counsel for the petitioner and the matter is now posted to I5.1O.2O25 and pray this Court to pass \. appropriate orders to that effect. :5. In that view of the matter, since the copy of the report has now been submitted to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitio.rer may take appropriate steps and pursue remedies as availatrle under law. With the above observations, this writ pefition is dispos,:d of. I To, 224r2 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendrng in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs. SD/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/e SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY//

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Affairs, State gf Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad Z. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Lakidikapul, Hyderabad 3. The lnspector of Police, ACq, clu,-ltylgrabad office at MLA Colony, Road No.1r, banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034'

4. One CC to SRl. D. KULASHEKHAR, Advocate [OPUC] 5.' Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT]

6. One CC to SRI T. BALA MOHAN REDqL9IECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR9 CUrtr Sfnr.rDlNG COUNSEL FOR ACB , [OPUC]

7. Two CD CoPies DAN BSqx i I I I |* { I i a 1 i i i I i : HIGH,COURT DATEDi14l1U2A25 ORDER WP.Ncr.31019 of 2025 't l-iES \ () i 6 i'{AR ?l?6 7- * * DISPCISING THE WRIT PETITION WITHoUT COSTS