Allowed

Bynigeri Gopal Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Jun 2019CRLRC/592/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted interim custody of seized vehicles to the petitioner, their undisputed owner, relying on the Supreme Court in Surenderbhai Desai. Custody was subject to a bond, deposit of RCs, and undertakings to produce vehicles as required.

What did the court decide?

Interim custody of the seized DCM Vehicles granted to the petitioner subject to execution of a bond, deposit of RCs, and undertaking to produce vehicles.

Bynigeri Gopal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.592 OF 2019

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. questioning the order, dated 06.05.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.710 of 2019 in Crime No.805 of 2018 on the file of the XXIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar.

¶5

The facts in issue are that the petitioner is the owner of the DCM Vehicles bearing Nos.AP 21 TB 4399, AP 21 TZ 9799, AP 21 TE 1699 and AP 21 TB 4939 and on 03.10.2018 the said vehicles were seized from the possession of accused No.10 in Crime No.805 of 2018 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 436, 406, 420, 506, 457, 380, 210 and 120-B read with 34 IPC and the said vehicles were produced before the XXIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar vide C.P.R.No.211 of 2018. During the pendency of investigation, the petitioner claiming to be the owner of the said vehicles filed Crl.M.P.No.710 of 2019 before the XXIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar seeking interim custody of the vehicles. By an order, dated 06.05.2015, the learned Magistrate rejected the application. Challenging the same the present revision is filed.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is every possibility of the vehicles getting damaged, if they are kept exposed to air, sun and rain at the Court premises and hence seeks interim custody of the vehicles. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor though opposed the revision, but did not dispute the ownership of the vehicles.

¶7

In Surenderbhai Ambalal Desai v. St at e of Guj arat¹ , the Apex Court has laid down that in case of vehicles seized during investigation,

¶8

1 (2002) 10 SCC 283

¶9

¶10

they should not be allowed to deteriorate by being kept unused and unattended in the premises of the Police Stations. Therefore, the vehicles have to be entrusted to the interim custody of the petitioner subject to appropriate conditions.

¶11

Since there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the vehicles and having regard to the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision stated supra, I am inclined to grant interim custody of DCM Vehicles bearing Nos.AP 21 TB 4399, AP 21 TZ 9799, AP 21 TE 1699 and AP 21 TB 4939 seized in Crime No.805 of 2018 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station, in favour of the petitioner on the following terms.

¶12

i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.5,00,000/ - (Rupees four lakhs only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the XXIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar.

¶13

ii) The petitioner shall deposit the original Registration Certificates of the vehicles in the Court. However, the trial Court shall issue a certified copy of the registration certificates to the petitioner so that no inconvenience is caused to him while using the vehicles.

¶14

iii) The petitioner shall give an undertaking to produce the vehicles as and when required either by the Investigating Agency or the Court and also give an undertaking that he will not alienate, encumber or alter the physical features of the vehicles.

¶15

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶16

________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶17

18.06.2019 gkv

¶18

Bynigeri Gopal Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bynigeri Gopal Reddy 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vadapalli Madhu Varma Vs State of Telangana

Mallu Tataji Vs The State of Telangana

Gurram Madhusudhan Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Pittala Jogaiah (A2), Warangal Dt and Anr., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Anabothula Surya prakash, Vs The State of Telangana

Wadepally Venkatesh,venkatappa Vs The State Of Telangana