Telangana High Court
Kota Venkatesh vs The State Of Telangana on 16 April, 2025
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5205 of 2025
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') with a prayer for
release of office premises i.e., Plot No.107, Blue Chip Arcade,
Opp:Tata Motors Showroom, Himayathnagar, which is illegally seized
by the police (herein after 'office premises') of the petitioner/accused
No.5.
2. Heard Mr.Jella Naresh Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner-
accused No.5, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State.
3. The petitioner/accused No.5 is arrayed as accused No.5 in
F.I.R.No.773 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 308(5), 79, 351
(2), 61(2) of BNS and 66 (C) and 66 D of Information Technology Act,
2000.
4. The petitioner is lease holder of the office premises and the
same has been seized by the investigating agency in Cr.No.773 of
2024. The solitary ground raised by the petitioner is seizure of the
premises by the police is illegal and it shall be released. Further
submits that since the police has not shown the seizure of property
in Form No.60 before the Magistrate concerned, the petitioner could
NTR,J
not approach the trial Court for its release and there is no other
remedy for the petitioner except this petition under Section 528 of
BNSS. He further cited the judgment in Nevada Properties Private
Limited vs. State of Maharastra 1 and pleaded that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has clarified that under Section 102 of Cr.P.C, only
movable properties can be seized and does not cover immovable
properties. Therefore, asserted for release of the property.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that no
specific instructions have been received, however, the petitioner
ought to have approached concerned Magistrate in case of seizure of
any property including immovable property. If the seizure of property
has not been reflected in the record, the Magistrate concerned may
call for remarks of the investigating agency and pass an appropriate
order. Without availing such remedy, asking this Court for release of
property would not be proper, especially when the proceedings of the
investigation are underway.
6. I have perused the materials on record.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner has not approached the trial
Court/Magistrate concerned questioning the alleged seizure of the
office/property. Even, as per the pleadings, the office has been seized
(2019) 20 SCC 119
NTR,J
during investigation as crime evidence. Whether it has been reported
or not to the Magistrate concerned is unclear. Form No.60 of Cr.P.C,
deals with the list of property sent to the Magistrate. The seizure of
office premises being immovable property reflection of seizure in that
form may not be plausible. Further basing on this fact deducing that
the police has not informed about the seizure of the office premises
to the concerned Magistrate and it amount to illegal seizure
improper. As per the procedure, once the crime has been registered,
the investigating agency is bound to report the Magistrate concerned
all the developments in the investigation including seizure of
property at the earliest, as investigating proceedings would be within
the supervisory domain of the Magistracy. That being of the position
and even as per the petitioner, office has been seized by the police as
part of material evidence in the case, drawing any conclusion as to
impropriety of the seizure of any property without considering the
requirement of the property in securing evidence and what would be
the implication if the property seized is released, would not be
justified. Counting these circumstances, this Court finds no tenable
ground to interfere with the seizure without deliberating the above
aspects. For that reason granting liberty to the petitioner to file
appropriate application seeking release of the office/seized property
before the Magistrate concerned is found appropriate. Accordingly,
ordered. If such application is filed, the learned Magistrate is directed
NTR,J
to exercise the merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance
with law.
8. With this observation, this criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
Date: 16.04.2025
mmr
NTR,J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5205 of 2025
DATE: 16.04.2025
mmr
