Kimudu Kondala Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Petition under Sectio n 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 52 8 of BNSS praying that in the circum s tances stated in the Memorandum of G rounds of Criminal Petition, the Hig h CourtPleased to relax the order dt. 28.11.2024 passed by the Hon'bie I A d ditional District & Sessions Judge Sp e cial Judge for Trial of Offences Unde r NDPS Act: Visakhapatnam in CrI.M.P.No. 903 of 2024 in Cr.No. 292 of 2024, on the file of the Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam City by considering the situation of the P e titioner as "Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Te n Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the Hon'bie VII Additional Judicial M a gistrate of First Class, Visakhapatna m and without any bank guarantee" instead of "Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees On e lakh only) with one surety for like sum to the satisfaction of VII Additio n al Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner shall f u rnish Bank Guarantee for Rs.1,00,00 0 /-" and permit the Petitioner withou t any bank guarantee to release the V e hicle and pass

¶15

2

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶17

1.DASARI RAMAKOTESWAR RAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶19

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

3

¶22

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 819/2026

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) filed by the petitioner herein seeking to direct the respondent to release vehicle i.e., Pulsar Motarcycle, bearing Registration No. AP 40 BJ 9528 which was seized in connection to Crime No.292 of 2024 on the file of Airport Police Station, Vishakapatnam City.

¶26

Sri D.Ramkoteshwar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the subject vehicle and that if the vehicle is exposed to sun and air, it is likely to get damaged. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, if the vehicle is ordered to be released on interim custody. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat¹ .

¶27

Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed to release of the vehicle on the ground that the investigation is still pending.

¶28

1 AIR 2003 SC 638

¶29

4

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶31

Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶32

The truth or otherwise of the allegations has to be decided in the course of investigation and trial. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is the registered owner of the subject vehicle. If the vehicle is kept unused in the police station or Court premises and exposed to sun, rain and air, there is every likelihood of the same getting damaged. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the vehicle can be ordered to be released on interim custody to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. The subject vehicle, i.e., Pulsar Motarcycle, bearing Registration No. AP 40 BJ 9528, in connection with Crime No.292 of 2024 on the file of Airport Police Station, Vishakapatnam City, is ordered to be released to the petitioner on interim custody, with the following conditions:

¶34

i. On his producing the original R.C. and executing a

¶35

personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

¶36

Only), to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned;

¶37

ii. On his executing a Bank Guarantee of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only);

¶38

5

¶39

iii. On his executing an undertaking that he would not

¶40

alienate the said vehicle or transfer its ownership or change any physical features of the vehicle; and

¶41

iv. On his executing an undertaking that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Trial

¶42

Court till the case is disposed of, in the Trial Court.

¶43

In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶44

However, it is made clear that the appropriate authority has got authority to proceed in accordance with law for confiscation or otherwise of the vehicle, by affording due and sufficient opportunity to both sides.

¶45

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶46

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶47

KKV

¶48

Date 04.02.2026

Kimudu Kondala Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kimudu Kondala Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sk Chan Basha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Maabu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sheriff Wasim Ahmed Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

Girijala Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr Bala Eswara Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Parella Vijay Chand Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh