Allowed

T Gurikala v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Jul 2021CRLP/3796/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and modified the condition imposed by the Superintendent of Police for the release of a seized vehicle. The petitioner is directed to furnish immovable property as security instead of a fixed deposit, relying on a prior order in W.P.No.14783 of 2020.

What did the court decide?

The condition requiring a fixed deposit receipt was modified; the petitioner must furnish immovable property as security for Rs.45,000/-.

T Gurikala Vs State of Ap — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶3

Criminal Petition No.3796 of 2021

¶4

ORDER :

¶5

Aggrieved by the condition imposed by the Superintendent of Police-cum-Confiscation Authority as per Section 46(2) of A.P. Excise Act, Kurnool, in his proceedings dated 23.03.2021, to furnish Fixed Deposit Receipt for an amount for Rs.45,000/- as fixed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector for the vehicle that was seized in connection with Crime No.344 of 2020 of Kowthalam Police Station, Kurnool District, to release the seized vehicle, this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents-State. 3.2 A case in Crime No.344 of 2020 was registered by Kowthalam Police, Kurnool District, for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act. Incidentally, police have seized motor cycle bearing No.AP21 CH 7425 in connection with the said crime. The petitioner, who is claiming to be the owner of the vehicle, filed a petition before the Superintendent of Police-cum-Confiscation Authority as per Section 46(2) of A.P. Excise Act, Kurnool, seeking interim custody of the said vehicle. The said petition was allowed on condition that the petitioner shall furnish a Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs.45,000/- as fixed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector for release of the vehicle. 4. Aggrieved by the said condition, the present Criminal Petition is filed seeking modification of the same.

¶7

¶8

At the time of hearing of this Criminal Petition, both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that this is a covered matter and when similar condition was imposed for release of the vehicles and the same was questioned before this Court in W.P.No.14783 of 2020, this Court allowed the said Writ Petitions on 08.09.2020, and modified the condition permitting the petitioners therein to furnish immovable property as security for release of the vehicles. Therefore, they would submit that the petitioner herein is also entitled to the similar order.

¶9

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid order of this Court in W.P.No.14783 of 2020, dated 08.09.2020, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The above condition is accordingly modified and the petitioner herein is directed to furnish her or third party immovable property for Rs.45,000/-, as security for release of the said vehicle. The said security relating to the immovable property shall be in conformity with the Stamps and Registration Act.

¶10

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶11

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:09.07.2021. cs

T Gurikala v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Gurikala v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gavvalapalli Siva Parvathi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Annem Nageshwara Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhusetty Nageswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Hussain ATChiddu Master Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Avuthu Srinivasa Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Takala Kasivisweswara Rao Vs The State of A.P.