A seized vehicle may be released to its lawful owner pending trial if the owner is not an accused or can prove lack of connivance in the offense, subject to providing security and undertakings to produce the vehicle when required.

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed praying this Court to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the petitioner’s vehicle i.e., Auto Rickshaw bearing No.TS 01 UA 9656, which was seized in Crime No.93 of 2026 of Mavala Police Station, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles, 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, prayed for other appropriate reliefs.

Heard Sri S.Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms.Shilpa, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Excise appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.4 and with their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of Auto Rickshaw bearing No.TS 01 UA 9656, which was allegedly seized on 09.02.2026 at about 13:00 hours for illegal transportation of one Blender’s Pride Wine Bottle 750 ml.; 10 Imperial Blue Whisky bottles each 180 ml.; and 10 Mc.Dowells bottles No.2 each 180 ml. total worth Rs.5,320/- and basing on the confession-cum-seizure report, a case in Crime No.93 of 2026 of Mavala Police Station, Adilabad District was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 34 (a) of the Telangana State Excise Act, 1968 . Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner is no way connected with the said illegal transportation and if the said vehicle is exposed to sun, rain and dust, it would get spoiled. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to execute bond or surety for release of the said vehicle. Stating so, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for release of the subject vehicle.

Ms.Shilpa, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, would submit that the vehicle was seized by the police, Mavala Police Station and is in the custody of the said police and not with the excise officials.

Sri M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.4 would submit that the subject vehicle was seized in Crime No.93 of 2026 while illegally transporting one Blender’s Pride Wine Bottle 750 ml.; 10 Imperial Blue Whisky bottles each 180 ml.; and 10 Mc.Dowells bottles No.2 each 180 ml. total worth Rs.5,320/-.

In similar matters, the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with same aspects in Tarun Kumar Majhi v. State of West Bengal , S.L.P. (Crl.) No.17081 of 2024, dated 03.03.2025 and held as under:-

“12. It is settled law that the seized vehicles can be confiscated by the Trial Court only on conclusion of the trial when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. Further, even where the Court is of the view that the vehicle is liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity of hearing to the person who may claim any right to the seized vehicle before passing an order of confiscation. However, the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner’s knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the seized vehicle by the accused person.

13. xxx

14. Since the respondent-State is unable to give any definitive timeline as to when trial against the fifth accused would conclude, this Court directs the Trial Court to release the vehicle in question after preparing a video and still photographs of the vehicle, subject to the Appellant furnishing a surety bond of Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand) instead of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs).”

Further, in Denash v. The State of Tamil Nadu , SLP (Crl.) No.8698 of 2025, dated 27.10.2025, the Apex Court held as under:-

“34. Although, on a superficial reading, the present case might appear to fall within