Telangana High Court

Bhimireddy Bhupal Reddy, vs The Union Of India Through Subinspector ... on 26 September, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

            CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.702 of 2025

ORDER :

Challenging the order, dated 08.09.2025 passed in

CRL.M.P.No.892 of 2025 in N.C.B.F.No.48/1/8/2024/NCB/HZU

(Hyderabad Zonal Unit) passed by the learned I Additional District

and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy (for short 'trial Court'), this

Criminal Revision Case is filed. By the impugned order, the

application filed by the petitioner under Section 503 of the BNSS,

2023, seeking interim custody of the vehicle i.e., Creta Car

bearing No. TS 28 E 1224, was dismissed.

02. Heard Mr.P.Sri Harinath, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner 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 concerned authorities i.e., Drug Disposal

Committee, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 63 of

NDPS Act. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assam 1

and prayed to allow the revision.

04. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the

petitioner and the truth or otherwise would come out only after

conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this

revision.

05. In Bishwajit Dey (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court at para Nos.26, 27, 35 to 40 held as under-

26. This Court is further of the opinion that there is no specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case.

27. In the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS Act and in view of Section 51 of the NDPS Act, the Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. Consequently, the trial Court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim. However, this power would have to be exercised in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of each case.

35. This Court clarifies that the aforesaid discussion should not be taken as laying down a rigid formula as it will be open to the trial Courts to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant.

Supreme Court in similar facts in Sainaba v. State of Kerala 2, has released the vehicle.

36. In the present case, this Court finds that after conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Karbi Anglong. In the said charge-sheet, neither the owner of the vehicle nor the driver has

2025 SCC (3) 341

(2024) 13 SCC 382: 2022 SCC Online SC 1784

been arrayed as an accused. Only a third-party occupant has been arrayed as an accused. The police after investigation has not found that the appellant i.e. the owner of the vehicle, has allowed his vehicle to transport contraband drugs/substances with his knowledge or connivance or that he or his agent had not taken all reasonable precautions against such use. Consequently, the conveyance is entitled to be released on superdari.

37. In fact, the Supreme Court in similar facts in Sainaba v. State of Kerala (cited supra) has held as under (SCC paras 6-9) "6. The appellant has urged inter alia that as per Section 36-C read with Section 51 of the NDPS Act, Criminal Procedure Code would be applicable for proceedings by a Special Court under NDPS Act and Section 451 has an inbuilt provision to impose any specific condition on the appellant while releasing the vehicle. The appellant is undoubtedly the registered owner of the vehicle but had not participated in the offence as alleged by the prosecution nor had knowledge of the alleged transaction.

7. The learned counsel seeks to rely on the judgment of this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat opining that it is no use to keep such seized vehicle at police station for a long period and it is open to the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking a bond and a guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time.

8. On hearing the learned counsel for parties and in the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the legal provisions referred aforesaid, we are of the view that this is an appropriate case for release of the vehicle on terms and conditions to be determined by the Special Court.

9. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving parties to bear their own costs."

If the vehicle in the present case is kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose.

38. This Court is also of the view that if the vehicle in the present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This Court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce.

39. On the contrary, if the vehicle in question is released, it would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able to earn his livelihood), to the bank/financier (who would be repaid the loan

disbursed by it) and to the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be available for transportation of goods). Conclusion

40. Consequently, the present criminal appeal is allowed with direction to the trial Court to release the vehicle in question in the interim on superdari after preparing a video and still photographs of the vehicle and after obtaining all information/documents necessary for identification of the vehicle, which shall be authenticated by the investigating officer, owner of the vehicle and accused by signing the same. Further, the appellant shall not sell or part with the ownership of the vehicle till conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an undertaking to the trial Court that he shall surrender the vehicle within one week of being so directed and/or pay the value of the vehicle (determined according to income tax law on the date of its release), if so ultimately directed by the Court.

06. In view of the above said legal decision as held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the submissions of the learned

counsel for the petitioner, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed,

setting aside the order, dated 08.09.2025 passed in

CRL.M.P.No.892 of 2025 in N.C.B.F.No.48/1/8/2024/NCB/HZU

(Hyderabad Zonal Unit) passed by the learned I Additional District

and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy and the Investigating Officer is

directed to produce the vehicle i.e., Creta Car bearing No. TS 28 E

1224 along with photographs of the vehicle before the learned I

Additional 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, the learned trial Court shall return the crime vehicle to the

petitioner/owner of the vehicle as interim custody, on proper

verification of ownership, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner/owner of the crime vehicle shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall deposit all information/ documents necessary for identification of the vehicle, authenticated by the investigating officer, owner of the vehicle and accused by signing the same.

(iii) The petitioner shall deposit the original Registration Certificate of the crime vehicle before the trial Court and the trial Court shall issue certified copy of Registration Certificate to the petitioner, to enable him to ply the vehicle on road without there being any hindrance.

(iv) The petitioner shall not sell or part with the ownership of the vehicle till conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an undertaking to the trial Court that he shall surrender the vehicle within one week of being so directed and/or pay the value of the vehicle.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

stand closed.

____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 26-SEP-2025 Note: