2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 22612
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
Dennis Joseph – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLRC 920/2025
##PAGE1##
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.920, 921, 922, 925 and 926 of 2025
22 DECEMBER, 2025
Between:
Dennis Joseph and four others … Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana, through
Prohibition and Excise Station Chevella
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor …Respondent
: COMMON ORDER :
Challenging the orders dated 11.11.2025 passed in
Crl.M.P.Nos.555, 556, 557 and 554 of 2025, and the order dated
31.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.516 of 2025 in Crime No.88 of 2025 of
P.S. Excise, Chevella, by the learned I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (for short ‘trial Court’), the
present Criminal Revision Cases are filed, and consequently to grant
interim custody of the said mobile phones to the interim custody of the
petitioners by imposing appropriate conditions.
2. Heard Ms. P.Sree Ramya, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record.
##PAGE2##2
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.08.2025,
upon receiving credible information, the STF Hyderabad Team
proceeded to the premises i.e., Serene Orchards Farm House, Plot
No.49, North East Park, Medipally Village, Moinabad Mandal, and
seized 0.05 grams of LSD, 20.21 grams of Hashish, six mobile phones,
and three cars from the possession of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to
3, 5 and 6 and accused No.4. Basing on the said seizure, a case in
Crime No.88 of 2025 was registered against the petitioners and others.
Thereafter, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 filed applications
in Crl.M.P.Nos.516, 554, 555, 556 and 557 of 2025 seeking interim
custody of the seized mobile phones. However, the same were
dismissed by the trial Court by the impugned orders. Aggrieved
thereby, the present criminal revision cases have been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court
erred in dismissing the applications filed by the petitioners seeking
interim custody of their mobile phones, despite the petitioners being the
owners of the seized mobile phones, especially when the same are
personal and essential instruments used for day-to-day communication,
work, banking, and personal safety. It is a settled principle of law that
when ownership of seized property is not in dispute and its production
during trial can be ensured by execution of personal bond or by
furnishing sureties, interim custody ought to be granted. Hence, learned
##PAGE3##3
counsel prayed to grant interim custody of the seized mobile phones to
the petitioners by allowing the present criminal revision cases.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submits that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are consumers
of narcotic drugs and the investigation is still under progress. The
mobile phones seized from the petitioners are crucial evidence for
retrieving data relating to the drug peddlers involved in the illicit trade of
narcotic drugs. He further submits that the release of mobile phones to
the petitioners at this stage may hamper the ongoing investigation. After
due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial
Court has rightly dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners
seeking interim custody of their mobile phones, and the impugned
orders do not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, he prayed
to dismiss the present criminal revision cases.
6. In a case involving narcotic substances, it is imperative that the
investigating agency be afforded sufficient liberty to investigate and
unravel the full contours of the conspiracy, including its connections,
financial transactions, communication networks, and the identities of
other people involved in the illicit trade. Premature interference with the
investigation, particularly in relation to the seized mobile phones which
may contain crucial evidence, would seriously hamper the progress of
the ongoing inves