IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.7691 of 2026 DATED : 13-03-2026 Between :

Sirpur Vinod. … Petitioner.

And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

… Respondents.

ORDER :

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief :

“…to declare the action of the respondent authorities in not releasing the petitioner's Bike TVS XL 100 Bearing vehicle No.TS- 01-EL-8892, seized in FIR.No.33 of 2026, on the file of 3^rd respondent, inspite of the readiness of the petitioner to furnish the third party surety, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release the vehicle…”

2. Heard Sri Gajanand Chakravarthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Arun Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing Sri A.Jagan, learned Government Pleader for Excise.

3. The petitioner, being the registered owner of the Bike bearing No. TS-01-EL-8892, has filed the present writ petition challenging the inaction of the respondent authorities in not releasing the said vehicle, which was seized in FIR No.33 of 2026 under the provisions of the Telangana Excise Act on the allegation that the petitioner along with one Utla Praveen were transporting ‘Dedidaru’ by purchasing the same from one Ravi of Maharashtra for less price and selling the same in their village for high price without any license and permission. The petitioner contends that though he is ready and willing to furnish third-party surety for interim custody of the vehicle, the authorities have failed to consider and release the same, thereby rendering the action illegal, arbitrary and unjust. It is further his case that continued detention of the vehicle is causing undue hardship and loss and therefore seeks a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle pending disposal of the writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities in withholding release of the seized vehicle, despite the petitioner’s readiness to furnish adequate third- party surety, is wholly arbitrary and contrary to settled legal principles. It is contended that continued detention of the vehicle, without initiation or conclusion of confiscation proceedings, amounts to an unreasonable exercise of power. The learned counsel further submits that keeping the vehicle in open custody would lead to its deterioration and depreciation, causing irreparable loss to the petitioner. It is thus urged that, in the absence of any legal impediment, the respondents be directed to release the vehicle forthwith, subject to such conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle is lawful and in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968. The vehicle was involved in the illegal transportation of contraband. Confiscation proceedings have been duly initiated. It is contended that granting interim release of the vehicle would defeat the purpose of the confiscation regime, pose a risk of repeated misuse for transporting excisable goods and compromise enforcement integrity. Further, past experience shows that interim custody is often misused, rendering confiscation orders ineffective. Therefore, in the interest of public health, law enforcement and prevention of future violations, this Court should reject the request for interim release of the vehicle.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the vehicle in question was seized in connection with Crime No.33 of 2026 registered for the offences under the provisions of the Telang