Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 566 (TS)

Vatti Bala Sumanth Reddy v. State of Telangana

2025-05-01

K.SUJANA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the order dated 05.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.26 of 2025 in Crime No.352 of 2024 of Afzalgunaj Police Station, Hyderabad and Consequently, prayed the Court to direct the concerned to release of the Car of the Petitioner vide Hyundai i20 vehicle bearing No.TS-08-GV-0799 to the GPA Holder/father of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a petition before the trial Court vide Crl.M.P.No.26 of 2025 in Crime No.352 of 2024 under Section 497 read with 503 of BNSS, seeking interim custody of a Hyundai i20 vehicle bearing registration No.TS-08-GV-0799. As per the prosecution, on 22.07.2024 at approximately 17:50 hours, at the OGH parking lot located behind the mortuary at Afzalgunj, Hyderabad, the accused were found in possession of 1.3 kg of ganja, 1 gram of OG ganja weed, vehicles and cell phones. Consequently, the petitioner, along with other accused persons, is alleged to have committed offenses punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) and Section 27 of the NDPS Act. 3. After hearing both sides, the trial Court, by order dated 05.03.2025 dismissed the petition observing that the seized vehicle belonged to accused No.1, who has been absconding since the registration of the case and is reportedly residing in the UK. The vehicle is now being claimed by his father through a General Power of Attorney (GPA). However, a GPA holder may not possess the legal authority to claim the vehicle on behalf of the owner under the NDPS Act. Granting custody of the seized vehicle to a GPA holder is generally barred unless there is a specific legal provision or Court order permitting it. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner has filed the present criminal petition. 4. Heard Sri M. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen who relocated to the United Kingdom in February 2021 for better career opportunities and has been residing and working there since. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen who relocated to the United Kingdom in February 2021 for better career opportunities and has been residing and working there since. In August 2024, the petitioner was shocked to learn of FIR No.354 of 2024 registered by the Afzalgunj Police under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 27 of the NDPS Act, falsely implicating him while also declaring him as absconding and seizing his vehicle bearing Registration No.TS-08 GV-0799. He further submitted that the petitioner was not in India on the date of the alleged offence, and there is no material evidence linking him to the crime. The FIR appears to be based solely on unverified confessional statements of co-accused persons. Despite this, the Police registered the FIR and unlawfully seized the Petitioner's vehicle without following due process or statutory procedures under the BNSS, 2023. The vehicle was seized from a parking area unrelated to the alleged offence and was not used for any illegal activity. The continuation of such proceedings against the Petitioner amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the father of the petitioner, who holds a valid General Power of Attorney, had filed Crl. M.P. No.26 of 2025 seeking interim custody of the vehicle on behalf of the Petitioner. However, the said petition was erroneously dismissed by the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge solely on the ground that a GPA holder may not claim the vehicle, despite settled judicial precedents permitting such interim relief. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat , (2002) 10 SCC 283 and various High Courts including in Jagadish Kumar M. v. State , Crl. Pet. No. 1476 of 2019 have held that seized vehicles should be returned to their rightful owners or authorized representatives to avoid unnecessary deterioration and hardship. The family of the petitioner, including a young child who frequently falls ill, has been severely affected by the continued seizure of the vehicle. The petitioner is willing to comply with any condition for release, including furnishing an undertaking or bond, to ensure the vehicle is made available as required. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the order of the trial Court and direct the trial Court to release the subject vehicle by allowing this criminal petition. 7. The petitioner is willing to comply with any condition for release, including furnishing an undertaking or bond, to ensure the vehicle is made available as required. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the order of the trial Court and direct the trial Court to release the subject vehicle by allowing this criminal petition. 7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that, since accused No.1 is absconding, the seized vehicle is essential for the investigation. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court. Further, the Trial Court has rightly passed the order, and prayed to the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 8. Upon hearing submissions made by both learned counsel and reviewing the material available on record, the point for consideration in this petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the subject vehicle. 9. From the record, it appears that the case was registered against accused No.1, stating that 1.3 kgs of ganja were recovered from the subject vehicle. The case is currently at the initial stage, and the investigation remains incomplete. As per Section 63 of the NDPS Act, during the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is convicted, acquitted, or discharged, the Court is required to determine whether any article or item seized under the Act is liable to confiscation under Section 60, 61, or 62. If it is found liable, the Court may order confiscation. Therefore, the decision regarding the disposal of the seized vehicle must occur within the scope of Sections 60, 61, and 62 of the NDPS Act only after the conclusion of trial, not at this preliminary stage. 10. However, leaving the seized vehicle idle and exposed to rust and environmental damage could impair its usability. In the judgment of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the District Judiciary was directed to dispose of case properties by issuing appropriate orders and conducting a panchanama before handing over possession. Such documentation can serve as evidence instead of physical production of the property before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence can also be recorded to detail the nature of the property. 11. Such documentation can serve as evidence instead of physical production of the property before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence can also be recorded to detail the nature of the property. 11. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam , (2025) 3 SCC 241 , held that there is no specific bar or restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act preventing the interim release of a seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, pending disposal of the criminal case. In the absence of such a restriction under the NDPS Act and in light of Section 51 of the Act, Courts may invoke their general powers under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC for the interim release of seized vehicles. The trial Court retains discretion to release such vehicles in accordance with the law and based on the facts and circumstances of each case. 12. In the present case, the petitioner is the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder for accused No.1, who is the registered owner of the vehicle. Considering the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Jagadish Kumar M. (supra) and other referenced judgments, to prevent deterioration of the vehicle due to prolonged exposure to environmental factors, interim custody of the vehicle can be granted to the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court should release the subject vehicle in favor of the petitioner (the GPA holder and father of accused No.1), by imposing appropriate conditions to ensure compliance with the law. 14. In view thereof, this criminal petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 05.03.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.26 of 2025 in Crime No.352 of 2024 by Afzalgunj Police Station, Hyderabad. Further, the Trial Court is directed to release the subject vehicle to the petitioner, i.e., the GPA holder and father of accused No.1, subject to suitable conditions. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.