APHC010491662026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1094/2026 Between: 1. SUBRAHMANYESWARA STONE CRUSHERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,DWARAKACHERLA NARASIMHA REDDY,S/O. VENKATESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,R/O. MARUTHI NAGAR, 2 LINE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. DWARAKACHERLA SAI CHARAN REDDY, S/O. NARASIMAHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,R/O. 6-184A, 3 LINE,, SRINGAR COLONY, KURNOOL ROAD ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR., HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI,AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, THROUGH SHO,ONGOLE TALUKA POLICE STATION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. DWARAKACHERLA SAI CHARAN REDDY, S/O. NARASIMAHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. 6-184A, 3RD LINE,, SRINGAR COLONY, KURNOOL ROAD ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MALIREDDY GOWTHAM 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) challenging the order dated 05.09.2026 passed by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole in Crl.M.P.No.5080 of 2026 in Cr.No.359 of 2026 of Ongole Taluk Police Station. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. On perusal of the record, the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, dismissed the petition filed by the Petitioner/owner of the vehicle under Section 503 of ‘the BNSS’ seeking return of the vehicle i.e., Hyundai Verna Car bearing No.AP 40 LV 1344 for interim custody. The vehicle was allegedly involved in the commission of offences in Crime No.359 of 2026. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that the investigation is still pending. However, keeping the vehicle in police custody would not serve any purpose. On the other hand, if the vehicle is exposed to sun, light, air, and rain, its value would deteriorate. 3 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat1, 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.” 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed by setting aside the order dated 05.09.2026 passed by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole in Crl.M.P.No.5080 of 2026 in Crime No.359 of 2026 of Ongole Taluk Police Station. The subject vehicle shall be released into the interim custody of the Petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20232. 1(2002) 10 SCC 283 2 ‘the BNS’ 4 6. The vehicle shall be released into the interim custody of the Petitioner, subject to the Petitioner furnishing a Bank Guarantee for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) and executing a personal bond for Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) with a single surety to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, and further subject to the condition that the Petitioner shall not alter the features of the vehicle nor sell or otherwise alienate the same without express permission from the Station House Officer/learned Magistrate/learned Trial Court concerned. 7. The learned Jurisdictional Magistrate shall, while effecting the release of the vehicle, adhere with utmost fidelity and strictness to the principles and procedural safeguards enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai supra, and ensure their scrupulous implementation so as to preserve the evidentiary value of the property and safeguard the interests of justice. 8. The vehicle shall not be used for any offence, including the alleged similar offence. The Petitioner shall produce the property either before the learned Magistrate or before the Court of Session which is going to try the case for the purpose of marking the property as material object. 9. It is made clear that the property is given only for interim custody. The learned Trial Court/Session Judge would decide about the ownership of the property also, if there is any rival claim. The property shall not be disposed until conclusion of trial. To that effect the Petitioner shall submit an undertaking affidavit before the learned Trial Court. 5 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 19.09.2026 PRA 6 86 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1094/2026 Date: 19.09.2026 PRA