The High Court · 2025

Revision filed under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS., aggrieved by the Order dated 1111112025 passed in Cd.M.P. No. 557 of 2025 on the file of the leamed IAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Between: Sylvestor Savio Ross, Sio Antony Ross, Age. 37 yrs, Occ. lT Employee, R/o H. No. 8-4-369/450 Swaraj Nagar, Opposite to Police Station, Site 2, Borabanda, Telangana. AND PETITIONER/Accused No.S The State of Telangana,, through Prohibition and Excisr> Station, Chevella, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderaba(l CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 922OF 2025l. Revision filed under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS., z1 grieved by the order daled 3111012025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 516 of 2025 on le, file of the learried I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Distric . RESPONDENT Between: fa$! Ggyal, S/o Sudheer Kumar Goyal Age. 28 yrs, ( c,c.tT Emptoyee, R/o 3137/3 Sector 44D Chandigarh Sdctor,47 (Present Aclress- Flat No. 41 1, 4191115, Attapur AND PET|Tlr )NER/Accused No.3 The State of Telangana,, through Prohibition and Excise r itation, Chevelta, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabac RESPONDENT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:925 OF 2025:. Revision filed under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS., a3 ;.ieved by the order dated 11-'1 'l -2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 556 ot 2025 on il^ : file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Distrir;. Between: 4bhij.it Benerjee, S{o Latg B. Ravindranath Benerjee Ap=. 32 years, Occ. lT Employee, R/o A-13/G1, Swetha Apartments, RK purani riear EiOl, Malkalgiri. AND PETITI( NER:/Accused No.1 The State of Telan Rep.. by its Public gana, through Prohibition and Excise S tation, Chevella, Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad RESPONDENTS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 926 OF 2025; Revision filed under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS., aggrieved by the Order dated 11-11-2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 554 ot 2025 on thefile of the learne{ I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Between: Gunde Simpson Rodricks, Sio. Prabhakar, aged about 38 years, Occ. lT Employee, R/o. Plot No. 193 AND 194, Rao s Sri Nilaya Apartments, Maruthinagar, Flat No. 203, Moulali AND PETITIONER/Accused No.2 The State of Telangana, through Prohibition and Excise Station, Chevella, Rep.. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner : MS. P SREE RAMYA Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEl ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWAD! gRrpEV! CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.920 921 922 925 r nd 926 of 2025 22 DECEMBER.2025 Between: Dennis Joseph and four others Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, through Prohibition and Excise Station Chevella Rep. by its Public Prosecutor Respondent : COMMON ORDER: Challenging the prders dated 11 .11 .2( 25 passed in Crl lt4.P.Nos 555, 556, 557 and 554 of 2025, and tlre order dated 31 .10 2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.516 of 2025 in Crim -' No.88 of 2025 of P S Excise, Chevella, by the learned I Additional Dist ict and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (for shorl 'trial Court'), the present Criminal Revision Cases are filed, and conr;, ,quently lo grant interim custody of the said mobile phones to the inter n custody of the petrtioners by imposing appropriate conditions. 2 Heard Ms. P.Sree Ramya, learned counsel f rr the petitioners and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional f ublic Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the recorc 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.08'2025,

3. upon receiving credible information, the STF Hyderabad Team proceeded to the premises i.e., Serene Orchards Farm House, Plot No.49, North East Park, Medipally Village, Moinabad Mandal, and seized 0.05 grams of LSD, 20.21 grams of Hashish' six mobile phones, and three cars from the possession of the petitioners-accused Nos l to 3, 5 and 6 and accused No.4- Basing on the said seizure, a case in crime No.88 of 2025 was registered against the petitioners and others. Thereafter, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 filed applications in Crl.M,P.Nos.5tO, Si+, 555, 556 and 557 oI 2025 seeking interim custody of the seized mobile phones. However' the same were dismissed by the trial Court by the impugned orders Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal revision cases have been filed'

4.LearnedcounselforthepetitionerssubmitsthatthetrialCourt erred in dismissing the applications filed by the petitioners seeking interim custody of their mobile phones, despite the petitioners being the owners of the seized mobile phones, especially when the same are personal and essential instruments used for day{o-day communicalion' work, banking, and personal safety. lt is a settled principle of law that when ownership of seized property is not in dispute and its production during trial can be ensured by execution of personal bond or by furnishing sureties, interim custody ought to be granted Hence' learned €.4 3 counsel prayed to grant interim custody of the seizecl tobile phones to the petitioners by allowing the present criminil revisior cases. 5 On the other hand, learned Additional F ublic Prosecutor submits that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3,5 anl6 are consumers of narcotic drugs and the investigation is still und,.' progress. The mobile phones seized from the petitioners are cr J ;ial evidence for retrieving data relating to the drug peddlers involved ir the illicit trade of narcotic drugs. He further submits that the release oI nobile phones to the petitioners at this stage may hamper the ongoing it vestigation. After due consideration of the facts and circumstances of he case, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the applications filed t y the petitioners seeking interim custody of their mobile phones, ert cl the impugned orders do not warrant any interference by this Court. lence, he prayed to dismiss the present criminal revision cases 6 ln a case involving narcotic substances, it is inperative that the investigating agency be afforded sufficient liberty t r investigate and unravel the full contours of the conspiracy, includin,t its connections, financial transactions, communication networks, anc the identities of other people involved in the illicit trade. Premature irl:rference with the investigation, particularly in relation to the seized mo rilg phones which may contain crucial evidence, would seriously hamp,r r the progress of the ongoing investigation. Having regard to these <;i cumstances, this l- :t/ 4 Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality, infirmity, or impropriety in the impugned orders passed by the trial Court warranting interference by this Court at this stage.

7. Accordingly, all the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file an appropriate application seeking interim custody of their mobile phones upon completion of investigation. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY RE;TISTRAR /-.I t-J SECTIOI{-OFFICER To, Hyderabad.

1. The I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, L'B' Nagar, 2 ohe CC to SRl. P SREE RAMYA Advocate [OPUC] 5. i*o CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

4. Two CD CoPies ASR/ BA -&D , l i I I i I ,l I I I I ! I I I I 'l I l I I i t T I I ! HIGH COURT DATED:2211212025 ORDER CRLRC.No.920, 921,922 925 & 926 0F 2025 R T H E 5 ,J c * { c:. 'i:i DISMISSING THE CRLRCs -,[<. '//r-e