SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20160

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J
BONTHA SRINATH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 10203/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chetan Ponnuru
For the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE, GP FOR HOME

Seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate in police custody; owners are entitled to seek interim custody, and such applications must be considered by the authorities on merits and in a timely manner.

Headnote:(A) Interim Custody of Vehicle - Seizure in Criminal Proceedings - Deterioration of Property - Seized vehicles should not be allowed to deteriorate by being kept unused and unattended in police station premises. (Para 2(c))

(B) Administrative Action - Representation for Release - Failure to consider representation - Where the respondent authorities agree to consider a fresh application, the court may direct the petitioner to file such application and the authorities to decide on merits within a stipulated timeframe. (Para 7, 8)

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the seized vehicle pending proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not considering the petitioner's representation dated 30.03.2026 for release of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AP 39 TU 2803 (Mahindra Bolero Truck) in connection with FIR No. 46 of 2026 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India consequently, direct the Respondent authorities to grant interim custody of the said vehicle forthwith to the petitioner and pas

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to grant interim custody of the said vehicle forthwith to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

The Court made the following:

ORDER:-

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not considering the petitioner's representation dated 30.03.2026 for release of the vehicle bearing Registration No.AP 39 TU 2803 (Mahindra Bolero Truck) in connection with FIR No.46 of 2026 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India consequently, direct the Respondent authorities to grant interim custody of the said vehicle forthwith to the petitioner and pass such other order in the interest of justice.…”

The facts that are germane for disposal of the writ petition are stated as follows:

(a) The petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.3 in FIR No.46 of 2026 of Buchireddypalem Police Station, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, for the offences punishable under Sections 271 , 272, 273 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

(b) In connection with the said F.I.R., the 3rd respondent seized the petitioner’s Mahindra Bolero Truck bearing Registration No.AP 39 TU 2803.

(c) Now, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents for release of the said vehicle, basing on the findings arrived by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat. In the said judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court held that seized vehicles should not be allowed to deteriorate by kept unused and unattended in the premises of police stations.

Heard Sri Chetan Ponnuru, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Excise for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.10256 of 2020 and batch dated 24.06.2020 for the following observations:

“…(i) The Station House Officer, who seized the vehicle of the petitioner, shall produce the said vehicle before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise concerned within three (03) days from today.

(ii) The 4th respondent i.e., Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh is directed to issue necessary instructions to his subordinate officers and to ensure to implement this order from today.

(iii) The petitioner i.e., the owner of the vehicle is permitted to submit his application forthwith before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise concerned to release the seized vehicle for interim custody pending proceedings under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

(iv) The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise concerned is directed to dispose of the said application filed by the owner of the vehicle for release of the vehicle for interi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top