HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.560 of 2025

ORDER

Challenging the order, dated 28.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2078 of 2025 in C.C.No.3387 of 2025 by the learned XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short ‘trial Court’), this Criminal Revision Case is filed. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner-accused No.6 under Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS, 2023, seeking interim custody of the seized property i.e., I-Phone 13 Pro Mobile and Vehicle bearing No.TS09FT0393, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri S.Viplav Simha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent– State. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.1139 of 2025, which was disposed of on 30.01.2025, directing the petitioner to file an application before the trial Court seeking interim custody of the seized property. Against the order of said Crl.P., he preferred a Special Leave Petition, but the same was dismissed on 21.03.2025. Thereafter, when he filed an application seeking interim custody of the seized property before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.2078 of 2025, the trial Court has dismissed the same.

Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner filed this revision.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the seized property and the same is necessary to meet his day-to-day needs. The trial Court has not assigned any valid reasons of what prejudice would be caused to the prosecution, if interim custody of the seized property is handed over to the petitioner and it erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking interim custody. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed in the matter.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again has given directions/precedents in releasing the vehicles or articles seized. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, wherein it is held that whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. Hence, he prayed to allow the criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor does not dispute that charge sheet was already filed. However, he submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against him can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial before the trial Court, and hence, prayed to dismiss the revision.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the aforesaid judgment, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the order, dated 28.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2078 of 2025 in C.C.No.3387 of 2025 by the learned XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, and the concerned Station House Officer, is directed to produce the seized property before the trial Court, within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the trial Court shall return the seized property i.e., I-Phone 13 Pro Mobile and Vehicle bearing No.TS09FT0393 to the petitioner/owner as interim custody, on proper verification of ownership, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner/owner of the crime vehicle shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall deposit the original Registration Certificate of the crime