IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.8494 of 2026 DATE OF ORDER: 23.03.2026 Between:

Syed Arshad Hussain ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad and others ...Respondents

ORDER :

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly on e in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 2^nd respondent to release the petitioner’s Vehicle Bearing No.TS 03 FC 1036 in F.I.R.No.261/2025, dated 07.12.2025, seized of petitioner’s vehicle was being illegal, arbitrary and unjust also Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to release of the vehicle to the petitioner forthwith, and pass.…”

2. Heard Sri Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Ms. Shilpa, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.3 and with their consent, this writ petition is disposal of at the admission stage.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner of TVS XL vehicle bearing registration No.TS 03 FC 1036. On 07.12.2025 at 18:30 hours respondent No.3 registered a case in Crime No.261 of 2025 under Sections 173 read with 3(5) BNS, 211(i) of TG Panchayat Raj Act and 34(a) TSEA, alleging illegal transportation of liquor bottles. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not an accused in the above case and there is no fault on him and the above said vehicle has been seized and lying in the premises of respondent No.3. Subsequently, the petitioner requested respondent No.2 several times to release the said vehicle, but no action has been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to seizure and detention of the vehicle, the petitioner is facing much hardship and inconvenience in attending his day-to-day life necessities and seeks a direction to respondents to forthwith release the said vehicle. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise would submit that the vehicle was seized by respondent No.3 after it was intercepted while transporting liquor without a valid permit. Accordingly, the vehicle was seized and samples were sent to the laboratory for analysis. The petitioner’s case is still under investigation, and at this stage, release of the vehicle is not warranted as it constitutes case property. However, the petitioner has every opportunity to file an appropriate application seeking release of the seized vehicle in accordance with law.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, while adopting the same stand, submits that the vehicle was intercepted and both the vehicle and the liquor were seized and handed over to the Prohibition and Excise Department for further investigation. The petitioner’s case is still under investigation, and at this stage, release of the vehicle is not warranted as it constitutes case property.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam in Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.13370 of 2024 categorically held as follows:

“34. This Court is also of the view that if the Vehicle in the present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This Court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the Vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce.”

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Denash v. State of Tamil nadu arising out of SLP (Crl.)No(s).8698 of 2025 categorically