APHC010387572026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 28th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 849/2026 Between: 1. A HRUSHI KESH PATRA, S/O NARASINGHA PATRA, AGE 34 YEARS,OCC LABOURER / VEHICLE OWNER ,R/O BAZARSAHI, DELHI MARKET, BALIMELA,ORKEI, MALKANGIRI DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE - 764051 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P., Amaravati,Through Station House Officer,Mothugudem Police Station,Alluri Sitharama Raju District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA Counsel for the Respondent: 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 07.11.2025 passed by the learned I Additional 2 Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram in Crl.M.P.No.2085 of 2024 in Cr.No.47 of 2023 on the file of Mothugudem Police Station. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. On perusal of the record, the Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, namely Ashok Leyland Carrier Van bearing No.OD30F6823. The Investigating Officer found that the Petitioner was transporting 550 Kgs of Ganja in the vehicle of the Petitioner. Therefore, the contraband and the vehicle were seized, Petitioner was arrested. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner’s livelihood depends on the vehicle in question, he has not committed any offence, he was falsely implicated in this case. The vehicle is of the year 2022. The learned Jurisdictional Magistrate dismissed the application filed under Section 457 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ for release of the vehicle. 5. 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 1(2002) 10 SCC 283 3 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.” 6. Till the guilty is proved the Petitioner is presumed to be innocent is the cardinal principle of adverse criminal jurisprudence. If the vehicle is kept in police station without actually being used it may be exposed to light, air and rain and liable for natural decay, no purpose would be served if it is left like that. Therefore, the vehicle is released to the interim custody of the Petitioner with certain stringent conditions, the vehicle would be used for lawful purposes, and the livelihood of the Petitioner would be ensured. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed while setting aside the order dated 07.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2085 of 2024 by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram. The vehicle shall be released to the temporary custody of the Petitioner on the executing a bond for Rs.20,00,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram as a condition precedent to such release. The guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai supra have to be followed scrupulously by the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate at the time of releasing the vehicle to the interim custody of the Petitioner. 4 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. 10. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram is directed to release the vehicle subject to the production of the sureties to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram. 11. 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: 28.07.2026 PRA 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 849/2026 Dt: 28.07.2026 PRA