Sukhram Jogaram Bishnoi Vs the State of Telangana

Sukhram Jogaram Bishnoi, S/o Jogaram Bishnoi, Aged about 41 yrs, Occ Vehicle Owner, Rl/o 1-35, Kidwaipet, Vepurigeri Mahaboobnagar, Telangana - 509001 .

¶10

...PETlTlONERYThird Party

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Rep. -by the Public Prosecutor, Through SHO PS Vanasthalipuram

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to allow the application and grant interim custody of the Goods Carriage LMV Bearing No. TG 06 T 0129, Chasis No. MA1RV2TUKROA3371 1, Engine No. TUR4A16590 to the petitioner, by setting aside the order Crl MP No. 240 of 2026 dated 19.08.2026 on the file of the Trial Court, on any terms and conditions.

¶15

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Pothamshetti Manoj, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

IN THE IIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI,AIIGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SR-EENIVAS RAO

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13693 ot2026

¶20

(CN R.No.HBHCO10s75562026)

¶21

Date:09.09.2026

¶22

Between

¶23

Mr. Sukhram .logaram Bishnoi

¶24

.Petitioner/Third Party

¶25

AND

¶26

The State ofTelangana

¶27

Respondent

¶28

o ER

¶29

This Climinal Petition has been filed to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in Crl.M.P.No.240 of 2026 date<1 19.08.2026 and to direct the respondent to release the vehicle of the petitioner, namely, Goods Carriage Llvfl/, bearing Registration No TG-06-T-0129, which was seized in Crime No.861 of 2026, of Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Malkajgiri

¶30

Heard l\4r. P. Manoj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents

¶31

2

¶32

With the consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition is disposed ofat the admission stage.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the Goods Carriage LMV, bearing Registration No.TG-06T-0129 and the said vehicle was seized by the Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram, in respect of Crime No.861 of 2026 on the alleged ground that accused No.2 was transporting contraband i.e., 13 gms of MDMA in the said vehicle. tte further submitted that the petitioner is a third party, and he filed an application seeking release of the vehicle before the leamed I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. However, the trial Court, without properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, erroneously dismissed the said application on 19.08.2026. He further submitted that the petitioner had approached the leamed I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar by filing an application vide Cr1.M.P.No.240 of 2026 in Crime No.861 of 2026, seeking interim custody of the subject^vehicle, and the said Court had dismissed the petition vide rts order dated 19.08.2026, on the ground that the petitioner has to approach the Drug Disposal Committee and that the said Court is not having^{jurisdiction.Though} the leamed trial Court is having^{jurisdiction,} the leamed trial Court, without deciding the

¶34

3

¶35

application on merits, retumed the same, and the same is contrary to the principle laid ,1own by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu t .

¶36

Learnec. Additional Public Prosecutor has not disputed the submissions rr.ade by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶37

Having considered the rival submissions made bv the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it reveals that, even according to the parties, the: petitioner is the owner of the vehicle , bearing Registration No.TG-06-T-(t129, and the said vehicle was seized in respect of Crime No.861 of 2r')26 on the alleged ground that the police serzed the contraband fi,rm the said vehicie. Ihe record further reveals that the petitioner is rrot an accused in the said crime, and the allegations are levelled against accused Nos.l &2 only.It also reveals from the record that the petitioner had approached the leamed trial Court on 19.0g.2026 and filed an e,pplication seeking interim custody of the vehicle, and the leamed trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner ougrtt to have approached the Drug Disposal Committee. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Denash,s case (supra), held that the

¶38

Special Court:; under the NDPS Act retain the jurisdiction to grant interim custody of the seized vehicle, rvhrch was involved under the provisions of

¶39

I 2025 Lawsurt (SC) t4i I

¶40

4

¶41

the NDPS Act. The learned trial Court, without following the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), mechanically dismissed the application. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the leamed trial Court ought to have considered the said application filed by the petitioner and decided the matter in accordance with law.

¶42

Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and also the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner's vehicle has been under the custody of respondent since 19.08.2026, and, this Court is inclined to grant interim custody of'the vehicle, namely, Goods Carriage LMV, bearing Registration No.TG-06-T-0129, in favour of the petitioner on his executing a personal bond for: a sum of Rs.50,000i- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking that he shall not alienate the said vehicle or change its physical features. The SubInspector of Police, Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate shall write to the RTA Authority not to transfer the said vehicle in favour of any third party without clearance from the Court. lt is needless to state that the petitioner shall produce the said vehicle before the Investigating Officer or before the concerned Court whenever required. -/

¶43

5

¶44

Accordingly, the criminal^{petitionis disposed of.}

¶45

Pending; miscellaneous applications,^{ifany,shall stand closed.}

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

Sd/. K.V.O. NARSI^BABU aisrsrlrlr EEGIsTRAR/ -. (--\

Y

sdcnoH oFFlcER

To,

The I Additional^{District & Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at L B.Nagar'} z. rne vtr^{AdditionalMetropolitanMagistrate cyberbadat Hayathnagar'} RangareddY^District.

¶52