APHC010329452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH^^^^^^^ AT AMARAVATl -0 tt: I > ,s>- o ?o rt. f. FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA R^DDY CRIMINAL RFV/i^inN CASE NO: 716 OF 2025 filed under Section 438 & 442 of BNSS( 397 & 401 of CR.P.C) against the Order dt.15.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.965 of 2025 in Cr.No. 34 of 2025 of Excise (R) Police Station, Tirupati. THE Revision Between: M Sai Teja, S/o. M. Kasiraju, aged 31 years, R/o. D.No. 6-27, Sai Nagar Tirupati Rural, Tirupati District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati The State ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2025 ^ Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant the interim custody of the vehicle bearing Reg.No. AP 39 LM 3168 to the petitioner/accused No.2 which was seized in Cr.No. 34 of 2025 of Excise (R) Police Station, Tirupati. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: i \ y IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY rglMINAL REVISION CASE N0.716 OF 2025 APHC010329452025 [3327] THE Between: . 1.M SAI TEJA, S/0 M. ^ASIRAJ^U.^ AGEO 31^YEAF^. R^^ ...PETITIONER D.NO. 6-27, SAI NAGAR DISTRICT. AND 1 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public ■ Prosecutor, High court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati^^^^ under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS against Crl.M.P.No.965 of 2025 in Revision filed the order dt.15.04.2025 passed in Cr.No. 34 of 2025 of Excise (R) Police Station, Tirupati. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRK, J CrI.RC No.716of 2025 t 2 The Court made the following ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred assailing the order dated 15.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.965 of 2025 on the file of the learned V Additional Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Junior Division), Tirupati, in connection with Crime No.34 of 2025 of Excise (R) Police Station, Tirupati, whereby the petition filed under Section 503 of BNSS seeking interim custody of KTM 200 DUKE motor bike bearing registration No.AP 39 LM 3168, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The petitioner is A-2 in Crime No.34 of 2025 of Excise (R) Police Station, Tirupati, registered for the offence under Section 8(c) read with 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Investigating Officer seized the KTM 200 DUKE motor bike bearing registration No.AP 39 LM 3168 during the course of investigation. Thereafter, the petitioner, who is A-2, who is claiming to be the owner of the said vehicle, filed a petition before the trial Court seeking interim custody of the said vehicle. The trial Court dismissed the said petition on the sole ground that the vehicle that was used for carrying the narcotic SRK, J CrI.RC No.716 of 2025 3 drug shall be confiscated to the State ultimately if the offence i proved and as such interim custody of the vehicle given to the petitioner. The said ground on which the trial Court dismissed the petition filed for interim custody of the vehicle is ex facie IS cannot be 4. erroneous. Simply because the vehicle that v/as used for carrying the contraband is to be confiscated in case the offence is proved, the request of the petitioner to give interim custody of the said vehicle cannot be denied or rejected on the said ground. Whether the petitioner has committed the said offence or not is the matter to be decided in the final adjudication of the said after trial is completed. At this stage, it cannot be said that the vehicle would be liable for confiscation. It is only when the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt after completion of the trial, then the trial Court has to pass an order to confiscate the said vehicle. Therefore, the same cannot be an impediment for grant of interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner, if he is otherwise entitled. 5. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle. Therefore, if the vehicle unused either in the Police Station or in the premises of the Court case is left SRK, J Crl.RC No.716 of 2025 4 likelihood of tin the trial of the case Is completed, there is every vehicle being damaged. Therefore, the aside the impugned directed to give Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting order of the trial Court;. The trial Court is said vehicle to the 6. interim custody of the petitioner- of Rs.50,000/- surety of the like sum to V Additional Civil Judge-cum- (i) on his executing a self bond for a sum Fifty Thousand only) with one (Rupees the!' satisfaction of the learned First Class (Junior Division), Tirupati, by the petitioner that he will Judicial Magistrate of (ii) on executing an undertaking not alienate the said vehicle or transfer its ownership or change to the vehicle; and undertaking by the petitioner that he directed by the trial Court any physical changes (iii) on executing an the vehicle as and when would produce till the case is disposed of, in the trial Court miscellaneous applications, if any. Case shall stand closed. As a sequel thereto, the pending in this Criminal Revision 7. Sd/- K TATA RAO deputy REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Judicial Magistrate of First Class The V Additional Civil Judge-cum- ( Junior Division), Tirupati, Chittoor District 1. (R) Police Station, Tirupati, Chittoor P 2. the Station House Officer, Excise District Purnachandra Reddy Advocate [OPUC] Public Prosecutor, High 3. One CC to Sri. D Court of Andhra Pradesh at 4. Two CCs to the Amaravathi [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies Stu 9 HIGH COURT DATED:04/07/2025 ORDER CRLRC NO. 716 OF 2025 I ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE