Ownership of seized property to be determined at trial while considering the rights of parties and potential depreciation of the asset.

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS , 2023’) challenging the order dated 10.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.205 of 2025 in Cr.No.1/RCO-ACB-CIU/2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge for Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad (herein after referred as “the trial Court”).

2. Heard Mr. Kulashekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajashekahar, learned counsel representing Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB cases appearing for respondent No.1.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein has filed an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C vide Crl.M.P.No.205 of 2025 in Cr.No.1/RCO-ACB-CIU/2024 seeking interim custody of the vehicle Mercedes-Benz GLS 450D 4MATIC bearing registration No.TG07N 0077. The said vehicle was seized by respondent No.2 on 01.05.2025 in the process of investigation in connection with crime registered against the father of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406 , 409, 420, 120-B read with 34 of IPC and Sections 7(c), 13 (1)(a) read with 13(2) of the Prohibition of Corruption Act, 1988 . The learned trial Court had dismissed the application by observing as follows:

No doubt, keeping the vehicle idle, it diminishes its value. The facts of the case shows that A1 and A2 are still in absconding. Inspite of the direction of the Court, they have not appeared before the investigating agency. There is no progress in this case. The main allegation of the prosecution is that, A1 has purchased the vehicle in the name of petitioner, as per the petition itself, the petitioner is student and she is not having such financial capacity to purchase the vehicle. The prosecution has to investigate the matter and they have to file charge sheet before the Court. Though, it is a vehicle stands in the name of the petitioner, but from the facts of the case it is not just and necessary to deliver the vehicle in favour of petitioner. Hence, this petition is hereby dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is having her own source of income and placed all necessary documents on record. It is further submitted that the ownership of the vehicle will be established at the time of trial, which may take considerable time. Meanwhile, if the vehicle remains idle, its value is likely to depreciate, and its condition may deteriorate, potentially causing further damage. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the absolute and lawful owner of the vehicle and she has no connection with the case registered against the accused No.1 and the petitioner is seeking only interim custody of the vehicle and she is ready to comply with conditions as may be imposed by this Court or before the learned trial Court to release the said vehicle.

5. Opposing the same, learned counsel representing learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases would submit that the petitioner has no such source of income as she is a student and the vehicle is higher value in nature and it is bought by accused No.1 with the misappropriated money. It is also evident that accused No.1 had filed a criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail before this Court vide Crl.P.No.6813 of 2024. Vide order dated 04.07.2025, this Court dismissed the application filed by accused No.1. It is further submitted that accused No.1 filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against him in Cr.No.1451 of 2023 vide Crl.P.No.390 of 2024. Vide order dated 06.06.2024, this Court had dismissed the said criminal petition. Accused No.1 has been absconding for quite a long time and he is not cooperating with the investigation, hence seeks to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitione