APHC010352982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 763/2025 Between: 1.GUNJA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O MUSALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O D.NO.12-1-300/325, RAMMANNAPETA COLONY, MALLEMAGUDU, KHAMMAM RURAL, KHAMMAM DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR MOTHUGUDEM POLICE STATION, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI 2.GUNJA SURESH, S/ GUNJA NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, R/OD.NO. 12-1-300/325, RAMMANNAPETA COLONY, MALLEMAGUDU, KHAMMAM RURAL, KHAMMAM DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.N V MOHANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 Order: Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 2. The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 challenging the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), (FAC) III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajamahendravaram in Crl.M.P.No.1321/2024 in Cr.No.68/2024 of Mothugudem Police Station. 3. An application was filed seeking interim custody of the motor vehicle, the vehicle bearing No.TG04TR6609, KTM Duke was used for commission of an offence punishable under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19852. The vehicle has been in the safe custody of the Investigating Officer since 16.09.2024. Keeping the vehicle in police custody would not serve any purpose. On the other hand, if it is exposed to sunlight, air and rain, the value of the vehicle would get deteriorated. 4. The learned Magistrate did not incline to allow the petition on the ground that the vehicle may not be produced, if it is released to the Petitioner. 5. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is not the owner of the property. He has filed certain documents to show that the vehicle belongs to him. He has 1 the BNSS 2 the NDPS 3 also filed insurance certificate showing that the vehicle is covered with insurance policy. 6. Keeping this vehicle for indefinite period in custody of the Police would not result in any positive way. On the other hand, the value of the vehicle would get diminished as it is exposed to sunlight, air and rain. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat3,gave certain guidelines regarding the granting of temporary custody of property to claimants, wherein at paragraph Nos.7 and 17 as under: “7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: 1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; 2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and 4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.” 8. Considering the entire gamut of the case, it would be appropriate and reasonable to handover the vehicle bearing No.TG 04 TR 6609 to the interim custody of the Petitioner with a condition that the Petitioner shall produce the 3(2002) 10 SCC 283 4 vehicle as and when required by any Court in connection with the present crime. The value of the property in the insurance document was mentioned at Rs.1,87,915/-, and the vehicle is of the year 2024. If an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is directed to be deposited as security in kind of bank guarantee before the learned Trial Court concerned it would meet the ends of justice. 9. In the result the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 passed by learned II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), (FAC) III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajamahendravaram in Crl.M.P.No.1321/2024 in Cr.No.68/2024 of Mothugudem Police Station, releasing the vehicle bearing No.TG 04 TR 6609 to the interim custody of the Petitioner, subject to the Petitioner furnishing bank guarantee to the value of Rs.1,00,000/- with a rider that the Petitioner shall not transfer the vehicle to anyone and he shall produce the vehicle as and when required by any court in connection with the instant crime. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 09.10.2025 VTS