Allowed

A Anantha v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Dec 2021CRLRC/536/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed criminal revision challenging the dismissal of a petition for interim custody of a motorcycle alleged to be a pilot vehicle in a drug case. Noting no dispute on ownership and the grant of custody for the crime vehicle, the Court awarded custody to the petitioner subject to a bond and delivery conditions under Section 457 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 28.04.2021 setting aside is granted. Interim custody of the motorcycle is ordered to be given to the petitioner on a bond of Rs. 25,000 with a surety for a like sum.

A Anantha Vs the State of Ap — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.536 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This criminal revision case under Section 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) is filed challenging the order dated 28.04.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.110 of 2021 on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, wherein the petition filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the Hero Passion Pro motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 39 CA 3308, was dismissed.

¶4

The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the subject vehicle which was seized in connection with crime No.303 of 2020 of Punganur Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 on the allegation that it was used as escort to Tata Sumo (Tara Spacio Gold SA 10 Seat Omin Bus) bearing No.AP 03 S 3243 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle) in which ganja was transported. Pursuant to registration of the crime, the petitioner approached the Court below seeking interim custody of the subject vehicle but the Court below dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner is before this Court.

¶5

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though no contraband was seized from the subject vehicle, it was seized on the ground that it was used as pilot vehicle to the crime vehicle in which contraband was transported. He submits that the same Court having

¶7

¶8

granted interim custody of the crime vehicle, has failed to appreciate that the subject vehicle was used as pilot vehicle and declined to grant interim custody of the subject vehicle to the petitioner. He submits that petitioner who is owner of the vehicle has no knowledge about involvement of her vehicle in the alleged offence and if the vehicle is kept idle for long time and get exposed to the nature, it will get damaged. Hence, he prays to grant interim custody of the subject vehicle to the petitioner.

¶9

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not disputed the ownership of the petitioner.

¶10

After considering submissions of both the counsel, Court below has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner with an observation which reads thus:

¶11

“In the petition, the petitioner did not mention as to how her vehicle went into the hands of the accused. However, a perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is no other than the wife of A1 in this case, who used the said vehicle as piloting vehicle to transport commercial quantity of ganja in a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.AP 03 S 3243. If the charge is proved against the accused in this case, the vehicles used for transporting ganja are liable to be confiscated to the State. In view of the fact that the vehicle was used for transporting commercial quantity of ganja, this Court declines to grant interim custody of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. The point is answered accordingly.”

¶12

A perusal of the record clearly goes to show that the subject vehicle has been used as pilot vehicle and contraband was seized from the crime vehicle. But, surprisingly the Court below has granted interim custody of the said crime vehicle by order dated 12.10.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.398 of 2021, a copy of which is placed before this Court, but refused to grant interim custody of the subject vehicle.

¶13

¶14

Taking into consideration the fact that there is no dispute with regard to ownership of the vehicle as well as the fact that the crime vehicle in which contraband was transported, has been given interim custody and in view of the law laid down under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., this Court feels it appropriate to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner by imposing certain conditions.

¶15

Accordingly the criminal revision case is allowed and the order dated 28.04.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.110 of 2021 on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, is set aside. The subject vehicle is ordered to be given interim custody to the petitioner on condition of her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle or change its physical features or create any encumbrance or charge on the same. She shall produce the vehicle whenever she is directed to do so by the lower court.

¶16

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶17

Date: 06.12.2021 Ikn

¶18

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶21

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.536 of 2021

¶22

06.12.2021

¶23

Ikn

A Anantha v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Anantha v. the State of Ap

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

Gandikota Chandra Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Ajay Kumar Saxena Vs Station House Officer

Shivani Vs Station House Officer

Bhupathiraju Satyanarayana Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ghantasala Rambabu, Vs State of Ap

B.Venkata Raji Vs State of Ap