Janagam Anjineyulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

JANAGAM ANJINEYULU,, S/O LATE JANAGAM NARAYANAAGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC BUSINESSR/O 1-276, GOWAKANAPALLI VILLAGE, NAMBULAPULIKUNTA MANDALANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,Through Station House Officer, Kotananduru P.S,Rep. by Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

1.RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶19

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

2

¶22

Order:

¶23

The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) challenging the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy in Crl.M.P.No.1368/2025 in Cr.No.42/2025 of Kothacheruvu Police Station.

¶24

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶25

On perusal of the record, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy, has dismissed the petition filed by the Petitioner seeking return of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KA 04 NB 7548, Hyundai i20, for interim custody. The vehicle was allegedly involved in the commission of offences in Crime No.42 of 2025, punishable under Sections 191(2), 117(1), 119(1), 118(1), 109(1), 74, 326(1), 329(3), 61(2), and 249 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’). The learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the Petitioner may sell the vehicle during the course of trial or enquiry. However, keeping the vehicle in police custody would not serve any purpose. On the other hand, if the vehicle is exposed to sun, light, air, and rain, its value would deteriorate.

¶26

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat¹ , gave certain guidelines regarding the granting of temporary custody of property to claimants, wherein at paragraph Nos.7 and 17 as under:

¶27

1(2002) 10 SCC 283

¶28

3

¶29

“7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:

¶30

1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

¶31

2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

¶32

3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

¶33

4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

¶34

17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep 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 return of such vehicles.”

¶35

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class Puttaparthy is directed to release the vehicle subject to the following conditions: the Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class Puttaparthy, and shall also furnish a Bank Guarantee for Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only); further, the vehicle shall not be transferred or disposed of, or used for the commission of any other offence, and it shall be produced whenever required by the Station House Officer or by the learned Trial Court.

¶36