Telangana High Court
Vatti Bala Sumanth Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 1 May, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4263 of 2025
ORDER:
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
SKS,J
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.
SKS,J
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.
SKS,J
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 1 , and various High Courts including in Jagadish
Kumar M v. State 2, 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
2002) 10 SCC 283
Crl.P.no.1476 of 2019
SKS,J
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
SKS,J
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.
SKS,J
11. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Bishwajit
Dey v. State of Assam 3, 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.
(2025) 3 Supreme Court Cases 241
SKS,J
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.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 01.05.2025
SAI
SKS,J
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4263 of 2025
Date: 01.05.2025
SAI
