"....to issue an order or direction more particularly one in
the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action
of the respondent authorities in not releasing the
petitioners Bike TVS Jupiter Classic Bearing vehicle No.
TS-01-EQ-2304, Seized in FIR.No.93 of 2026, on the file
of 3rd respondent, inspite of the readiness of the petitioner
to furnish the third party surety, as being illegal,
arbitrary and unjust, and consequently direct the
respondent authorities to release the vehicle, and to
grant...."
2. Heard Sri Gajanand Chakravarthi, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri Arun Kumar, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise
appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri M.Srinivas,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing
for respondent No.3 and with their consent, this writ petition
is disposal of at the admission stage.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner of TVS
Jupiter Classic vehicle bearing registration No.TS 01 EQ
2304. On 07.02.2026 at 20:00 hours respondent No.3
registered a case in Crime No.93 of 2026 under Sections
223, 174 BNS and Section 34(a) of TS Excise, under the
guise that the accused-Sachin was in illegal transportation
of I.M.F.L liquor. It is further submitted that the petitioner
is not an accused in the above case and there is no fault on
him and the above said vehicle has been seized and lying in
the premises of respondent No.3. Subsequently, the
petitioner requested respondent No.2 several times to release
the said vehicle, but no action has been taken. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to seizure
and detention of the vehicle, the petitioner is facing much
hardship and inconvenience in attending his day-to-day life
necessities and seeks a direction to respondents to forthwith
release the said vehicle.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition
and Excise would submit that the vehicle was seized by
respondent No.3 and kept in custody after it was intercepted
while transporting liquor without a valid permit. Accordingly,
the vehicle was seized and samples were sent to the
laboratory for analysis. The petitioner's case is still under
investigation, and at this stage, release of the vehicle is not
warranted as it constitutes case property. However, the
petitioner has every opportunity to file an appropriate
application seeking release of the seized vehicle in
accordance with law.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, while
adopting the same stand, submits that the vehicle was
intercepted and both the vehicle and the liquor were seized
and kept in custody by respondent No.3. The petitioner's
case is still under investigation, and at this stage, release of
the vehicle is not warranted as it constitutes case property.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey v. State
of Assam in Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2025 arising out of
SLP (Crl.) No.13370 of 2024 categorically held as follows:
"34. 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."
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Denash v. State of
Tamil nadu arising out of SLP (Crl.)No(s).8698 of 2025
categorically held as follows:
"34. Although, on a superficial reading, the present case might
appear to fall within the second scenario delineated in
Bishwajit Dey (supra), where contraband is recovered from the
owner's agent (driver) who is arrayed as an accused, however,
the application of criminal law cannot be reduced to a rigid or
mechanical formula. Each case must be examined in light of its
peculiar facts and circumstances. In the present matter, a
holistic consideration of the record reveals that the facts do not
align strictly with the said category for the following reasons:-
i- Firstly, the appellant is the lawful owner with valid
documents, and the vehicle was commercially engaged in
transporting a valuable consignment of 29,400 MT of iron
sheets. It is highly improbable to believe that he would risk
both the costly vehicle and the high value consigned goods and
his business goodwill by knowingly allowing narcotics to be
transported along with the cargo.
ii- Secondly, the contraband, i.e., 6 kilograms of Ganja was
recovered from the four charge sheeted accused persons.
iii- Thirdly, the appellant was not arraigned as an accused
and the charge sheet contains no material suggesting that the
appellant had knowledge of or connived in the offence.
iv- It can thus, safely be presumed that the said contraband
must have been procured by the drivers and/or the khalasis
without the knowledge or connivance of the appellant.."
8. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, and upon perusal of the material available on record, it
is noticed that the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in
FIR No.93 of 2026. Further, the vehicle registration
documents reflect the petitioner as the registered owner.
Considering that considerable time may be taken for filing of
the final report, continued retention of the vehicle is likely to
result in deterioration of its condition and functionality.
Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the
respondent-authorities to release the TVS Jupiter Classic
vehicle bearing registration No.TS 01 EQ 2304 upon proper
verification of ownership and upon the petitioner furnishing
a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
only) with one surety for a like sum, to the satisfaction of
respondent No.2 or the learned trial Court in the form of a
Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), which shall be kept alive and
shall not be liquidated without the permission of the learned
trial Court. The petitioner shall deposit the original
registration certificate of the subject vehicle with respondent
No.2. The petitioner shall not alienate or change the colour
or nature of the vehicle during the pendency of the
investigation and confiscation proceedings. He shall submit
an undertaking to respondent No.2 stating that he will
produce the vehicle whenever required, either before the
Investigating Officer or before the trial Court.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending,
shall stand closed.
____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Dated: 16.04.2026
VSU
