Allowed

B.Shiva Kumar Goud v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Feb 2016CRLRC/497/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a criminal revision case granted the petitioner's request for the interim release of a crime vehicle (Maruthi Swift) used in a criminal case, subject to the execution of a personal bond with a surety and conditions ensuring its production.

What did the court decide?

Release of the impugned crime vehicle (Maruthi Swift Car No. AP-28-DP-0824) for interim custody of the petitioner conditioned on execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety.

B.Shiva Kumar Goud Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.497 of 2016

¶2

ORDER

¶3

The petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Case by invoking the provisions under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the docket order dated 08.02.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.380 of 2016 in Cr.No.40 of 2016 by the learned XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶4

2. Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶5

3. Petitioner herein filed the impugned application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court below seeking to release the crime vehicle i.e., Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.AP-28-DP-0824 and the same was returned by the Court below vide impugned order on the ground of jurisdiction. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed.

¶6

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and if the vehicle is kept idle for a long period, there is every possibility of it getting damaged. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish sufficient surety and also produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court.

¶7

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor objects for the same, since the vehicle is involved in a crime.

¶8

6. Considering these circumstances, it is directed that the vehicle i.e. Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.AP-28-DP-0824, shall be released for interim custody of the petitioner, subject to final

¶9

orders to be passed in the main case, on the petitioner executing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District and also on production of original R.C. book. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle, shall not change the physical features of the same till the disposal of the criminal case and further the petitioner shall undertake to produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court. However, it is made clear that the present order will not stand in the way of any confiscation proceedings. If already confiscation orders are passed, the order need not be given effect to.

¶10

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision, shall stand closed.

¶11

_______________ RAJA ELANGO, J

¶12

11^th February, 2016 sj

B.Shiva Kumar Goud v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Shiva Kumar Goud v. The State of Telangana

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

Padala Gunna Rao, Vs The State of A.P.

Panchagnula Subrahmanyam Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Edigi Sanjeev Goud Vs the State of Telangana

Bandi Shyam Goud, Vs The State of Telangana

Pothula Ramarao, Vs The State of Andhrapradesh

Masa Mogili Vs the state of Telangana