Allowed

Bhandameedi Sathaiah v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC17 Oct 2012CRLRC/2005/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Judicial Magistrate granted interim custody of a seized motorcycle to the petitioner-owner on personal bond with surety, clarifying this does not bar confiscation proceedings in the main case.

What did the court decide?

Release of vehicle AP-24-S-2105 on interim custody upon execution of personal bond for Rs.25,000 with surety and undertaking not to alienate the vehicle.

Bhandameedi Sathaiah Vs The State of A.P. — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

Crl.R.C.No.2005 of 2012

¶3

ORDER

¶4

Petitioner preferred the present criminal revision case by invoking the provision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the docket order dated 15.10.2012 passed in C.F.R.No.2577 of 2012 in P.R.No.439 of 2012-12 by the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise) Offences, Nalgonda, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C for interim custody of the vehicle i.e., Hero Honda Splender bearing No. AP-24-S-2105, was returned.

¶5

2. Heard.

¶6

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle and if the vehicle is kept idle for a long period, it will get damaged and hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶7

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed for the same.

¶8

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is directed that the vehicle i.e.,Hero Honda Splender bearing No.

¶9

AP-24-S-2105, shall be released to the petitioner for interim custody, subject to final orders to be passed in the main case, on his executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty fifty thousand only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of

¶10

the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise) Offences, Nalgonda and subject to production of all the documents relating to the vehicle in question. The petitioner shall also give an undertaking not to sell, alter or alienate the said vehicle and produce the same as and when directed by the trial court. However, this order does not preclude the authorities concerned from proceeding with the confiscation proceedings.

¶11

6. With the above directions, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶13

17^th October, 2012 sj

Bhandameedi Sathaiah v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhandameedi Sathaiah v. The State of A.P.

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

V. Sunny Heracleas, S/o. v. Sam Erastus Vs The District Collector

Ch.Sridhar,(A-3) Vs v.S.Rajamannar

Gopisetty Veeresham Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Somulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Meleveettil Engineering Constructions Vs The State of Ap.

P.Bixapathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh