Allowed

B. Dhanunjaya v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Jul 2021CRLP/4005/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court, in a criminal petition under Section 482 and 457 Cr.P.C., directed the 2nd respondent police to accept solvency surety furnished by the petitioner-owner for the release of a seized Scorpio vehicle without insisting on a Fixed Deposit Receipt (F.D.R).

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to accept solvency surety for the value of the vehicle for release without insisting on F.D.R.

B. Dhanunjaya Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4005 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 & 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to direct the 2^nd respondent to release the vehicle i.e. Scorpio bearing registration No.AP02 AM 8888 in Crime No.67 of 2021 of Settu Police Station, Anantapur District to the petitioner on furnishing collateral security/solvency certificate for the value as fixed instead of insisting F.D.R.

¶4

Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is owner of the subject vehicle and the respondent-police seized the petitioner’s vehicle in respect of Crime No.67 of 2021. He submits that when the petitioner approached the respondent authorities for release of his vehicle, the 2^nd respondent as per order dated 30.04.2021 directed the petitioner to furnish F.D.R for Rs.1,42,300/- towards value of the vehicle. He submits that the 2^nd respondent fixed onerous condition for release of vehicle and the petitioner is not in a position to furnish F.D.R and in similar circumstances in Crl.P.No.3756 of 2020 dated 09.09.2020, this Court directed the 2^nd respondent to accept solvency surety for release of vehicle, as such his case may be considered for release of vehicle.

¶6

¶7

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent is directed to accept the solvency surety furnished by the petitioner for the value of the subject vehicle for release of vehicle, without insisting for F.D.R.

¶8

Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed.

¶9

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶10

stand closed.

¶11

__________________________________ JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

19^th July, 2021

PVD

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶16

(Allowed)

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4005 of 2021

¶18

19^th July, 2021

¶19

PVD

B. Dhanunjaya v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Dhanunjaya v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samaraj Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Surla Hymavathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chokka Jagannadham, Vs The State

Karri Sudeepthi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Karri Bharath Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Ambu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh