Court in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assaml anor prayed to a iow the revis ion

The State of Telangana, through, S.H.O. P.S. R.C. Puram Rep. by its public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ...RespondenUCom plainant Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Palle Sriharinath Counsel for the Respondent : Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy Assistant public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER THE I{ONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K, SUJANA CRILIINAL REVISION CASE No.774 of 2025 ORAL ORDETI: Thrs ilr nrinai Rcvision Case is filed challcr-rging the ordcr rl:rrcd 22.0,r.,025 passed in Crl.MP.No.982 of 2Ct25 in Crim: No.124 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional Dislrict anrl Sessions.l,rdllc, at Sangareddy. The said petition rvas hled for intcrim custlrciv of auto bearing No.TS 34 TB 5776 and the sam: u'as dismisse,l b1- rvay of impugned order. Aggricved therebl , this rer,'isior.r case is preferred

2. Heanl Sri Palle Sriharinath, le arncd courrsel for th : petitioner, :rnd Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learncd Assistant Public Proser:utor for respondent No. 1 State. I)elused th: rercord

3. Learncd counsel for the petltioncr submitted that th: matter is sqlarely covered by the order dated 28.O8.2O2:i passed bv t.hi:; Court in Criminal Revision Case No.602 of 2O2:; and prayed this Court to grant the similar relief.

4. I-earned Assistant Public Prosecutor also submitted thal the issue in the present criminal petition is covered by th,: -] a I l l ' -w\. earlier order passed by this court in the above mentioned criminal revision case.

5. In view of the said representation and as the matter is squarely covered by the orcier passed by this court rn Criminal Revision Case No.6O2 of 2025, it is recordecl that this Criminal Revision Case is allog,ed in terms of the above saici order, adopting the reasoning and conditions contained therein, and the order dated 22.06.2025 passed by the trial Court in Crl.MP.No.982 of 2O2S in Crime No.l24 of 2O2S is set aside_ 6 With the above obscrvation, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. N SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To, ,M 1 The lAdditional Distrjct & 2. The Station House Officer p S R C pura'm "' vsi r:ru I \ 3. Two CCs to the public prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, 4. One CC to Sri. palle Sriharinath, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies !e_s1ons Judge at Sanga Reddy. at Hyderabad (OUT) DL/ABK rvorE' R.Visb 19 JirectcJ fo annex 1f"r cofy "f 1t^o_ or&-q &Ald 3-t.cr(.Li f C-rinina{ l-cvi si an Ca-!c NO. boL o{ :cz5 TgSt^. ct Lr ltwv-gta ,I 1.e,. Lg.lo.zc^25. -...'''. {l ir:i R \ r1E i T4 C o ? 0[I 2025 * s r)} ! J HIGH COURT DAf ED:271101202!t ORDER CRLRC.No.774 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE (o' Utl4 4f\ l0 '),') 1r-.1*{'}qs*,,wp It .rrrt+il ! 3 --l HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.6 02 of 2A25 ORDER Challenging the order, datcd 06 08 2025 passed in Ir/unipally, Crl N4.P.No.73B of 2025 in Crime No.1B of 2025 of P S by the learned I Additional Distrlc[ arrd Sessions Judge at Sangareddy (for short'trial Coui-t'), this Criminal Revision Case is filed. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioncr underSection4gTofBNSS,2023,seekinginterimcustodyofihe crime vehicle r.e., Bolero Vehicle bearirrg No'OD0282873' was d ismissed

2. Heard Mr.P.Sri Harinath, learrred counsel for [he petitioner as Well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. Perused the record' Learned counsel for the petitioner subrnits that the petitioner 3. 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 concernedauthoritiesi.e.,DrugDisposalCommittee,whichis 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 3 ) ,s,, (lrl.R.C.No.60Z (rl 2025 Court in Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assaml anor prayed to a iow the revis ion 4 On rhc othcr lrand, the learned Additional pLrblic proseclicr subnritted tha. Lhere are specific allegations agajn:tt thc petitioner and the tr-Lrtir 'i- otherwise wourd come out onry after conducting lriar by tlre concerncC Court and prayed to dismiss this revrsron. 5 ln Bishwajit Dey (cited supra), the Hon'ble Su1;remc Cour, at para Nos.2[i 27,35 to 40 held as under_ 26 Ilt s (.out1 is furllter of the opinian that there is rio spccrftc l)ar.4 ?s!r tcit,)n undcr thc provisions of the NDpS Act for rt,turn ol alny ::ct.t:() vehjcle used for lranspofiing narcotic rlrug or psycltottctpt-: .subslarce in the interim pencJing disposal )f the ctin nal ail: -o 27. lt1 lhe ,tbsencc of any specific bar unCer the t,lDpS Acl and in t tev, of Sectian 51 of lhe NDpS Act, the Cour1 cart rtvr:l-:c: ti,e r:cneral power under Sections 451 and 45/ C-.p C kt returi t oi tlte setzccJ velticle pending final decision ol the c irrinal L:;ts':. Canscquen y, the trial Courl has the discretion to release i,'tc velticle in the intcrint. However, lhis powcr woulcl have to,-.e ::xcrciscd in accorclance wilh law in the facr:; atrcl c/fct.//,.isla,ilc t..i of eacll case. 35. I hi: C)L I ctarifies lhat lhe aforesaid disct/s.sro, should nr:! l;-. tttkcn as laying down a rigid formula as ft t^itll bc open tc li:e llal Courls to take a clifferent view, if the facts ol the CASC SO i'/:1II']Dt Sttpre rn:: Cr:trrt in sinilar facts in Sainaba v. State of Kerala2, ltt:s i-e le a.,;,. c lttc \/chiclc. 3b^. i't ii:a prescnl casc. lhis Courl finds l)nt ?]ftcr conclttsio,i a invesligation, a charge_sheel has been fitecl in (hc Ccttrl of SDectal Juclge, NDpS Karbi Anglong. tn the saicl charge-sheer. neither the owner of the vehicle nor the driv€t has bcen arrayr:d ::s a, accused. Only a third_party occupant has been arra/ec as an accused. The potice after investigation has ' lctla s(:c I r, l.t l '(201.1) tr Se( l3t: I ) ! s(jc o Iinc SC I 7Sl i , i * I 1l! I .l I t I II ! I i i I I I t i 1XW9-;X$| ,v. 3 IS, I Crl.R.C.No.60Z of 2025 not found ttlat tl)e appetlant ie' the owner it,l!.e-J,iiffirl:: altowed his vehicle to transpoft contraDano " -lt^',-",""* nud with lis knowledge or connivanLe or.that nt- ll..l,'".,.l, ,"". tDi tJken dll IcasonJbl" Pr.,cattl ons trg'""J' "- Consequently, the conveyance is entitted to be rebased on superdari. courl irt sinilar racts /'r sa//laba 37. tn fact, the Su?reme v- State of Kerala (cited supra) has he[rl as rttder (SCC paras t' )) nrct rlu lh'tl Js per sc'' llon 36 r-- '6. fhe a\Pc'tJnl has Llrgcd ,r read with Sectron 51 or the NDPS l"' ":^:i:.::,"^:::::^ CuJc woutd bt- ttppltcllc for Dro' codtngs uv <' vr- ' undcr NDPS Act an(l S"ction'qst hrs an ilDLtilt t''"'i:io" '':1 i,,,,rt"'rr, s,p('ci[ic co]ldilion on llt" appclbnt whil'e tet'castttq ',i,,"'"r.ni,J llo :tpl:ctt'tttt is ttndoublcdlY 0rc ragistetcd owner in the offence as alleged of the vehicle but had not nor t"'a- l'o*itogt of the slle qed '"i""i'"t"d "u',u''7,',"'' lrarrsaclion' ks to rely on ltte judgntcnt of "iro,'"'utiion .tf.tis 'in "lJ,r,i

7. The lcarneci counse/ see ,'n ii,i'iuoitati ambatat nesar v' stale of Gujarat optntns t/rat it is no usc to keep'u"t' s"J'otl vehicte at police station for ' r";"rs w'i"t "o'':,?:,:i, ir'i3^,!iti"i'"'"ot r,l;': apptoptiate otders immedtao',y "'^,. )-7\,t,,,1 .rirl venicte. it ollJli.lnl[easwc//assecunlylo|rclttrno[llrcsaidvehtc rcqttitcdalany pointoftine , t^. ^-Aiac ancl in lltc B. On hcaring the learned coutisel for patlies and ,1,,"i0"'",,,'""i'"n'':":::1^i:::[';::;':,',n':;;;:?li: teqal provisictns *r":'0,:::;;;;; o,r"u,e venicte on terms and is an aPPrtsPtiale cdse tor rt i"rl),rlrr,i it delermined hv the spcciat courl' g. *,i',:::'::#,:";'"th' The appeal is u""Ziii'gty "ttowed teaving paflies to pj o t i c e" t i t t t n e -t p'u'"nt case is kept in the custodv or r i a,, : *-7 ! ^,, ^y,, I n)" 7 ; :", : :,"; ?;. v e h i c t e i n t h e i: 'oJ" u"i,"'"" ii" custodv o^t po,tice titt ,,11,i1 ;.""'lI ; ":::: 'lhe liat is over' il witt serve no p''po'" This Coud lakes iudicial notice tnat veniaes itt pclice cusrody are sl.ored in the ,:;:;-;;;:;;;";,*,,-,:z j;;|l,,i"ii"!,1"i,,i!"J,o,n!",,,#",i,i7 triat, it wilt be wasted and : its value wilt only reduce.. 39. on lhe contrrry' woutd be bcneticial to the'Y1il,','*i"';*;. hvetthood), to thc bankrfinan"::"i;:,:;":,";,;, rlisbursed bY it) and lo .tne-: i;lii",i"*r,'id be avaitable [or ttat$podation of goods)' --^ .rchicle in question is release d, it .i,f 'n-t.)", @ro woutd be able to carn his repart the toalt lats an addttionat 1 : { i I i I l i I I I ( ?s- 4 lt;,i (iri.R.C.No.60Z of 20 Z5 Conclusion 40. Conscquen y, the present criminal appeal is allowel with drection to the trial Court to release the vehicle in question in [he inter,n on superdari afler preparing a vjdeo and sti photograpLts of lhc vehicle and after oblainingl alt inforntati(, n/c acunenls necessary for identification of the vehicle, llhi:lt shall lte authenticatecl by the invcstigaling officer, cl.,ne r a,i ]e vchicle and accusecj by signing lhe :;ame Futlhcr. ltie irppeltat)t sltali not sell or parl wi t tt.te owncrst,ip of {he vehicit: liti ciiclusian of the trial and sha fL)rnish an undertaking tc lhe trial CourT that tte sltall surren(.ler the vt)ricle within one w't:ek of being so clirccted and/or pay te value of lhe vehicle (ct.:tctnined accorcling lo inconte lax law on tL)e (taie of rls releas..). ii so Ltilintalcly ciirecte(i by the CoutI.

6. ln view oI the above said legal clecision as helcl [r,7 fie Hon,blr: supreme corirt as \''lc as the submissions of the rearned counser for the petiticner. thrs crirninar Revision case is aIowed, settin(l aside the order, datcd 06.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.p.No.738 o. 2025 in Crimc lJo.'l B of 2025 oi p.S. Munipally, by the learr.red Additional Dis;irir;t aniJ Sessions Judge at Sangareddy and the Station Housc. C)f{icer, p.S. IVunipally, is directed to produce the crime vehicle i.e.. Borero Vehicre bearing No.oD02B2B73 arong with photographs cf the vehicre before the rearned r Additionar 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, thc trial Court shall return the crirne vehicle to the petitioner/owner of the vehicle as interim custody, on proper verification of ownership, sub]ect to the following conc ittons: * a., $ z: t : : , I ;: ,iA !& T9,r*I * * ,t { t I i i 1 I i I .': E Is,, Crt.R.C.No.60Z 0f ZO25 .,1 ':,. (i) The petitioner/owner of the cri furnish a Personal bond for a sum (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with o sa[isfaction of the trial Court me vehicle shall of Rs.2,00,0O0/- ne su rety to the shall dePosit all infortnatiotri (ii) The Petitioner for identification of the vehicle' documents necessarY authenticated by the investigating officer' owner of the vehicle and accused by signing the same' (iil) The petitioner shall deposit the original Rcgistration Ce rtificate of the crime vehicle before the trial CoLttl and the triat Courl shall issue certified copy ol Registration Certificate to the petitioner' to enable hitn on road without ihere being anY to plY the vehicle hindrance. (iv) The Petitioner shall rrct sell or own e part with thc rship of the vehicle till conclusiorr of the trial and furnish an undertaking to the trial Court that he surrender the vehicle within one week of being rected and/or pay the value of the vehiclc so di N4iscellaneousapplications'ifanypending'shallalso stand closed

28.08.2025 Date BV JUVVADISR IDEVI, J