M Sai Teja Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010329452025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH^^^^^^^ AT AMARAVATl -0

¶3

-0
tt: I >
,s>- o
?o rt.
f.

¶4

FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA R^DDY CRIMINAL RFV/i^inN CASE NO: 716 OF 2025

¶7

Revision filed under Section 438 & 442 of BNSS( 397 & 401 of^CR.P.C) against the Order dt.15.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.965 of 2025 in Cr.No. 34 of 2025 of Excise (R) Police Station, Tirupati.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M Sai Teja, S/o. M. Kasiraju, aged 31 years, R/o. D.No.^{6-27,SaiNagar} Tirupati Rural, Tirupati District.

¶10

...Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High^courtof Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2025 ^

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S praying that^{inthecircumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to grant the interim custody of the vehicle^{bearingReg.No.AP39LM} 3168 to the petitioner/accused No.2 which was seized^{inCr.No.34of2025of} Excise (R) Police Station, Tirupati.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court made the following Order:

¶18

APHC010329452025

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3327] AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶20

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶21

THE

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶24

rglMINAL REVISION CASE N0.716 OF 2025

¶25

Between:

¶26

1.M SAI TEJA, S/0 M. ^ASIRAJ^U.^ AGEO 31^YEAF^. R^^ D.NO. 6-27, SAI NAGAR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER

¶27

AND

¶28

1 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public ■ Prosecutor, High court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati^^^^

¶29

Revision filed under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS against Crl.M.P.No.965 of 2025 in the order dt.15.04.2025 passed in Cr.No. 34 of 2025 of Excise (R) Police Station, Tirupati.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶31

1.D PURNACHANDRA REDDY

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶33

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶34

SRK, J CrI.RC No.716of 2025

¶35

t

¶36

2

¶37

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶38

This Criminal Revision Case is preferred assailing^theorder dated 15.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.965 of 2025 on the file of the learned V Additional Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate^of First Class (Junior Division), Tirupati, in connection with Crime No.34 of 2025 of Excise (R) Police Station, Tirupati, whereby the petition filed under Section 503 of BNSS seeking interim custody of KTM 200 DUKE motor bike bearing registration No.AP^39LM 3168, was dismissed.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The petitioner is A-2 in Crime No.34 of 2025 of Excise (R) Police Station, Tirupati, registered for the offence under Section 8(c) read with 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Investigating Officer seized^the KTM 200 DUKE motor bike bearing registration No.AP 39 LM 3168 during the course of investigation. Thereafter, the petitioner, who is A-2, who is claiming to be the owner of the said vehicle, filed a petition before the trial Court seeking interim custody^ofthesaid vehicle. The trial Court dismissed the said petition^onthesole ground that the vehicle that was used for carrying^thenarcotic

¶40

SRK, J 3 CrI.RC No.716 of 2025

¶41

drug shall be confiscated to the State ultimately if the offence ISi proved and as such interim custody of the vehicle cannot be given to the petitioner. 4. The said ground on which the trial Court dismissed the petition filed for interim custody of the vehicle is ex facie erroneous. Simply because the vehicle that v/as used for carrying the contraband is to be confiscated in case the offence is proved, the request of the petitioner to give interim custody of the said vehicle cannot be denied or rejected on the said ground. Whether the petitioner has committed the said offence or not is the matter to be decided in the final adjudication of the said case after trial is completed. At this stage, it cannot be said that the vehicle would be liable for confiscation. It is only when the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt after completion of the trial, then the trial Court has to pass an order to confiscate the said vehicle. Therefore, the same cannot be an impediment for grant of interim custody^ofthe vehicle to the petitioner, if he is otherwise entitled. 5. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle. Therefore, if the vehicle is left unused either in the Police Station or in the premises of the Court

¶42

SRK, J Crl.RC No.716 of 2025 4

¶43

likelihood of tin the trial of the case Is completed, there is every vehicle being damaged. Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting 6. Therefore, the order of the trial Court;. The trial Court is aside the impugned said vehicle to the interim custody of the directed to give petitioner-

¶44

of Rs.50,000/self bond for a sum (i) on his executing a surety of the like sum to Fifty Thousand only) with one (Rupees V Additional Civil Judge-cumof the learned the!' satisfaction First Class (Junior Division), Tirupati, Judicial Magistrate of by the petitioner that he will executing an undertaking (ii) on transfer its ownership or change not alienate the said vehicle or to the vehicle; and any physical changes

¶45

undertaking by the petitioner that he (iii) on executing an directed by the trial Court the vehicle as and when would produce till the case is^{disposedof,inthetrialCourt} miscellaneous applications, if any. 7. As a sequel thereto, the Case shall stand closed. pending in this Criminal Revision

¶46

Sd/- K TATA RAO deputy REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶47

//TRUE COPY//

¶48

To,

¶49