Allowed

Bathina Anand Mohan Rao v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Mar 2024CRLP/958/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Third party sought interim custody of his car seized in an NDPS case after dismissal of his release application. Holding that no contraband was seized from the petitioner's vehicle, the High Court allowed interim custody on bond with conditions to produce the vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Interim custody of vehicle AP 39 AE 3378 to petitioner on self-bond Rs.2,00,000 with surety, subject to production/alienation undertakings.

Bathina Anand Mohan Rao Vs State of Ap — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI F/7t//m C.
TUESDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH if)
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR ai i:
O
'Sk-//'/ ■‘M
PRESENT C/

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 958 OF 2021

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bathina Anand Mohan Rao, S/o B.Durga Rao, Aged. Years, Occ. Private Employee R/o. D.No. 10-25-13/6, Near Pitana Street, Old Jail Road, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District

¶7

...Petitioner/Third Party

¶8

AND

¶9

State of AP, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High^{CourtofA.P.atAmaravathi.} 2. Merugu Chittibabu @ Chittimamu, Visakhapatnam.

¶10

The Manager, HDFC Bank Limited, Seethammadhara Brach, Visakhapatnam

¶11

(Respondents 2 and 3 are not necessary parties to this Petition)

¶12

...Respondent

¶13

Petition under Section 482 R/w 457 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the orders dated. 4-01-2021 in Crl.M.P.No176 of 2020, in crime no-487 of 2020 on the file of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim custody of Maruti Celerio ZXI Car bearing Registration No.AP 39 AE 3378 seized in Crime No.487 of 2020 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam District

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of^Sri T D Phani Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for Respondent Nos.2&3

¶15

The Court made the following Order:

¶16

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No. of 2021 ORDER:

¶18

The petitioner herein is a third party. The case was registered by Duwada police against A.l to A.5 for the offences under Section 8(C) Section 20(B)(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') and Section 34-A of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that: a. On 06.06.2020, the police of Duwada Police Station, during search of the vehicle bearing No.AP 39 AE 3378 (Maruthi Celerio ZXI), found 10 packets of dry ganja weighing 20 kgs and MORPHEUS ZO blended reserve whisky 750 ml-3 bottles, block buster ultra strong beer 650 ml - 24 bottles and cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- in one scooter and another car bearing No.AP 39 ED 1717 and seized the same at Shakeela junction, Rajeev nagar, Visakhapatnam, under the cover of mediators report. A case in Crime No.487 of 2020 was registered for the offence under Section 8(c) 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 34-A of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act as the vehicle was used for transportation of contraband,

¶20

b. A.l has taken the vehicle of the petitioner/third party on the pretext of attending his brother's daughter engagement and did not

¶21

return the said vehicle even after lapse of ten days. A.l did not disclose about registration of case and seizure of^the vehicle. On enquiry, through one of his friends, the petitioner^hereincame to know that his vehicle is parked in the police station^andthen filed Crl.M.P.No.l76 of 2020 seeking release of the vehicle which was dismissed on 04.01.2021 by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same. the present petition is filed.

¶22

Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor^forthe respondent No. 1/State and perused the material on^record.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the remand report, no contraband was seized from the vehicle of the petitioner as such. Section 52 of the NDPS Act would not apply to the facts of the case. The seizure of 650 Ml. beer 24 bottles would not amount to an offence under NDPS Act. If the vehicle is kept without proper security in open space, it will be damaged and deteriorated day by day.

¶24

As seen from the record, the petitioner herein is^notanaccused in this crime. Admittedly, he is a third party. As per the remand report. no property was seized from the vehicle of the petitioner relating to NDPS substances. In that view, dismissing the petition for custody of

¶25

the vehicle is not tenable in the eye of law. The schedule^vehicleisa car bearing No.AP 39 AE 3378 (Maruti Celerio Car).^{Needlesstosay,} as per Section 60 of NDPS Act, any vehicle used for^carrying the t narcotic drugs shall be confiscated to the State, if^the offence is proved.

¶26

The case is at the stage of crime and it may take^someyears for disposal. Admittedly, the vehicle is kept open^{tosky. Thereissome} force in the argument that day by day when the vehicle^isexposed, the condition of the vehicle will be deteriorated. In that view, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State^of Gujarat held as under:

¶27

"In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no^usetokeep 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^returnof such vehicles."

¶28

(emphasis supplied)

¶29

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of^the case, considering the request of the learned counsel for^{thepetitionerand} in the light of the law laid down on the issue, the^{criminalpetitionis}

¶30

^ AIR 2003 SC 638

¶31

allowed and the the vehicle bearing No.AP 39 AE 3378 shall be given towards interim custody to the petitioner, on proper^{identificationand} acknowledgment and on execution of self-bond for Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees two lakhs only) on bank surety/one solvent^{suretyforalike} sum each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge. The petitioner shall give an affidavit before the trial Court giving an undertaking^that he will produce the vehicle as and when directed by^{thetrialCourttill} the trial of the case ends and that he will not alienate^{thesaidvehicle} or make any changes relating to the physical features^ofthesaid vehicle or that he will not create any encumbrance or charge over the said vehicle.

¶32

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand^closed. SD/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-1 Additional District & Sessions JudgeSpecial Judge for Trial Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam district

¶37