Allowed

Santosh Kumar v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Sept 2024CRLP/7194/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed to set aside an order dismissing a plea for interim custody of a seized vehicle. The Court set aside the lower court order and directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to security conditions.

What did the court decide?

Order of Metropolitan Sessions Judge set aside; trial Court directed to release seized Mahindra Scorpio (KA 28 N 6023) to petitioner upon furnishing security and undertaking.

Santosh Kumar Vs State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA'} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY,THE SECOND^{DAYOF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYFOUR}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICE K. SUJANA}

¶5

CRIMINAL^{PETITION NO: 7194 OF2024}

¶6

Between:

¶7

santosh Kumar, s/o^{lshwarappaaged47 years, occupation.,sitnoor, cJ colony'} Afzalpur, Kalaburagi,^Karnataka

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused No.l.

¶9

AND

¶10

state of Telangana,^{Represented by its Public ProsecutorHighcourt of Telangana,} at Hyderabad

¶11

...ResPondent

¶12

petition under section 482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition, the High court may be} pleased to set aside the order^{passed in criminalMiscellaneous Petition No. 32 of} 2024 in prime No. 512^{ot 2023 of P.s. Bowenpally secunderabad and grant} interitn custody of^{four wheelervehiclei.e. Mahindra scorpiobearing No. KA 28} N 6023.

¶13

This Petition coming on^{for hearing,upon perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of criminal Petition^{and upon hearingthe argumentsof Sri Himangini} sanghi, Advocate for the^{Petitioner and Dr. SurepalliPrashanth, Learned Assistant} Public Prosecutor on behalf^{of the Respondent.}

¶14

The Court made the following^ORDER:

¶15

t a tI ! Ii I

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7194 of 20124

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 52g of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short^,BNSS,) to set aside the order dated O3.O4.2O24 passed in Crl.M.p.No.32 of 2024 rn Crime No.512 of 2023 by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed Cri.M.P.No.32 of 2024 in Crime No.512 of 2023, under Section 451 read with 457 of Cr.P.C to grant interim custody of four wheeler vehicle i.e., Mahindra Scorpio bearing No.KA 2g N 6023 and two mobile phones i.e., Samsung and Redmi and the same was allowed in part on O3.O4.2O24 by releasing thc mobile phones with conditions therein. Further, with regard ro the four wheeler vehicle, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitionei hled the present criminal petirion.

¶21

Heard Smt. Himangini Sanghi, learned counsel :rppearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Dr. Surepalli prasanth, learned Assistant Public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶22

¶23

sI(s,./ CrLP.No.7194 oJ 2O24

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that^the petitioner is the registered owner of the^vehicle in^question which has been seized by the Police Officers in connection^with the aforesaid Crime. He further^{submitted that the petitioner} being the registered owner^{of the vehicle in question,is the best} entitled to get back the^{possessionof the seizedproperty.It is} also submitted that the vehicle in^{questionispresently} stationed unused at the^Police Station^{and soon itwould} become^junk. Therefore,^{he prayedthe Courtto set asidethe} order of tlre trial Court^passed in^{Crl.M.P.No.32 of 2024 in} Crime No.512 of 2023.

¶25

In support of his submission,^{learnedcounsel for the} petitioner relied upon the^judgment of the High Court^of Judicature for Rajasthan^{Bench at Jaipur in Kaniram vs. State} of Rajasthanr, wherein in^{paragraphNos.4 to 6, it is held as} follows:

¶26

"4. The purport of the case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the^power under Section 451 Cr.P.C should^{be exercised expeditiously.} The reason being that owner of the article should^not suffer because of it remaining^{unusedand the Police} should not be required^{to keepthe article} in^safe custody. Apart from this,^{ttrese seizedvehicles} which

¶27

'S.B.criminal^{Miscellaneous(petition) No.1993of 2024}

¶28

¶29

SKS,J CrLP.No.7l94 oJ 2024

¶30

-f

¶31

in a rvider sense, are national^{property,would not be} alloq.ecl to become^junk day^{by day. [thas becn} further laid down in the^{aforecitedcaselaw that while} giving custody of the article, the article^{should be} released on proper security.

¶32

Furthermore, in the aforecited^precedent lau,, the Honble Apex Court has held that^{the court} should pass appropriate orders immediately^{and tl-re} articles should not be kept for^a long^{timeat the police} station, and the procedure for disposal^{of the seized} valuable articles, currency notes,^{vehicles,seized} liquor and narcotic drugs has^{beenlaiddowntherein.}

¶33

Considering the submissions advanced^by learned counsel for the^parties and in^{view of the} ration laid down in the aforecited^{case law, the present} misc. petition is allowed. The impugrred^{order dated} 2l.O3.2024^passed by learned^{Special Judge,N.D.P-S-} Cases. Jhalawar in Criminal^{Misc. Application} No.77 12024 (C.LS. No.30/2024) is^{quashedandset} aside and the learned court below is^directedto release the vehicle in question^(Car Ford^{Figo) bearing} registration No.RJ 17-CA-5201 to the^petitioner provided he furnishes a Supurdaginama of Rs. I ,00,000/ - and surety of like amount to^the satisfaction of the trial Court. The^{petitionershall} furnish an undertaking to the court below^{that he} shall not sell, transfer or alienate the^{vehicle in} question without permission of the Court and^{that he} shall not use the vehicle for any illegal^{arrd unlawful} purpose in future. He shall also produce^{the vehicle} before learned trial Court as and when^asked upon^to do so. "

¶34

TI I

¶35

¶36

sfis,J CrLP.No.7194 oJ 2024

¶37

On the other hand, learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutor} opposed the submissions made by^{the learnedcounsel for the} petitioner stating that there is no illegality in the order of^the trial Court and prayed the Court to^{dismissthe criminal} petition.

¶38

In the light of the submissions^{made by both the learned} counsel, a perusal of the material^{available on record and in} view of the ratio laid down in the^{aforecitedcase law, the} present criminal petition is allowed. The^{impugned orderdated} O3.O4.2O24 passed in Crl.M.P.No^{.32 of 2024 in CrimeNo.512of} 2023 by the learned Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge, Hyderabadis} hereby set aside and the trial^{Court is directedto release the} vehicle in question^(Mahindra Scorpio)^{bearing registrationNo.} KA 28 N 6023 to the petitioner by imposing^appropriate conditions.

¶39

Miscellaneous applications, if any^{pending, shall also}

¶40

stand closed.

¶41

Sd/- C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTAN REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

1 . The^{tvletropolitan} Sessions^{Judge, Hyderabad.}

¶44

The Station^{House Officer, Bowenpally Police Station, Secunderabad'}

¶45

Two CCs to^{Public Prosecutor,HighCourt of Telangana'[OUT]}

¶46

One CC to Sri^{Himangini Sanghi, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶47

Two CD Copies.

HIGH COURT

OATEDi02lOgl2024

ORDER

CRLP.No.7194^{of 2024}

¶52

HE S T4I A
o p,
+
,l
I I il!! ,lt0i
q
. r),
<br>--

¶53

ALLOWING THE^{CRIMINAL PETITION}

¶54

S.oPfaA
ffi.

Santosh Kumar v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peddintigolla Mekala Srinu Alias Srinu Vs The State of Telangana

Nazima Begum Vs The State of Telangana

M.Satish Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

P. Chinranjeevi Vs Thatikonda Prasad

Kalvakuntla Thejeshwar Rao @ Kalvakuntla Kanna Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Akka Nagamma Vs The State of Telangana