The court upheld the revisional court's order granting police custody for evidence seizure under specific legal provisions.

ORDER:

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners to quash the order dated 26.09.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.39 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge at Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the revisional court has passed an erroneous order setting aside the order passed by the trial court. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate has dismissed the petition filed by the State for seeking police custody of the petitioners and when the State has preferred revision before the Sessions Court, the same was allowed and the police custody of the petitioners herein was granted for three (3) days, which is against the legal principles. He further submitted that the FIR is registered in the month of March and police custody was granted in the month of October i.e. after seven months, which is strictly in violation of law and therefore, prayed to quash the impugned orders. He also submitted that the petitioners were granted bail vide order dated 17.03.2025 subject to the condition that they would appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Monday and Friday and that they have been complying with the said orders till date without any violation and that the revisional court failed to consider the said point. Inspite of the petitioners attending the concerned Police Station twice a week, the present petition is filed seeking custody of the petitioners without there being any ground.

4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the only specific ground raised for filing the police custody petition by the prosecution is that they would like to seize certain material. His contention is that the police have already seized the material from the petitioners and there is nothing else to seize, hence, the said ground is not tenable and all other grounds on which the police custody is sought are general in nature and hence, they do not deserve any consideration. The revisinoal court has failed to appreciate the same and erred in granting police custody, which is not at all just and proper and therefore, prayed to quash the impugned order.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the FIR is registered on 10.03.2025 while the orders dismissing the petition for police custody was passed by the trial court on 17.03.2025, and against the same, the police filed petition for setting aside the order of the trial court on 21.03.2025 within a period of eleven (11) days from the date of registration of FIR and that it is very much within the period specified under the Statute i.e. within a period of forty (40) days. Therefore, he further submitted that the police custody is sought for seizure of other electronic devices apart from the devices which are already seized. He further submitted that compliance of bail conditions cannot be a ground for seeking quash and that though the petitioners are appearing before the police concerned in compliance of the bail conditions, it does not mean to say that the police can interrogate and elicit the truth during the said visits. He further submitted that the petitioners herein are alleged to have committed a serious offence by telecasting objectionable material, intending to provoke differences among different groups of people and that the petition lacks merit and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the same.

6. Perused the record.

7. The petitioners herein are facing offences under Sectio