Seized vehicles should not be detained indefinitely in police custody pending trial to prevent deterioration; they may be released on interim custody subject to reasonable safeguards and financial security to balance the owner's rights and the prosecution's interests.

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 respondents in seizing the vehicle of the petitioner MAHINDRA BOLERO MAXX PUP HD 2.0L, VXI BSVI-PH2 bearing registration No.TG 08 T 4384 and registering a Crime No. 300 of 2025 Dated 19-10-2025 by Thorrur Police Station as being illegal, arbitrary even though the petitioner had not committed any illegality or irregularity is nothing but illegal, arbitrary. unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the constitution of India consequentially direct the respondents to releasethe vehicle of the petitioner MAHINDRA BOLERO MAXX PUP HD 2.0L, VXI BSVI-PH2 bearing registration no. TG 08 T 4384to the petitioner.…”

Heard Sri Ganapuram Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home and Mrs.Shilpa, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing Sri A.Jagan, learned Government Pleader for Excise and Prohibition.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the owner of a Mahindra Bolero Maxx PUP HD 2.0L VXI BSVI-PH2 vehicle bearing registration No.TG 08 T 4384 and is dependent upon the said vehicle for his livelihood. In order to obtain hire bookings due to lack of regular rides, he subscribed to a transport portal application. On receiving a booking from one Vishal for transportation of goods from Jangaon to Thorrur, the petitioner agreed to transport the goods believing them to be jaggery. However, while proceeding towards Thorrur, officials of the 3rd respondent intercepted the vehicle and alleged that it was transporting prohibited illicit liquor. It is stated that the officials found black jaggery, alum and illicit liquor cans in the vehicle, pursuant to which the vehicle was seized on 19.10.2025 and Crime No.300 of 2025 was registered for offences under Section 34(E) of the Telangana State Excise Act and Sections 7(A) read with 8(E) of the relevant Prohibition Act. The vehicle has since been kept at Thorrur Police Station. The petitioner contends that he had no knowledge of the alleged illegal transportation and was unaware of the presence of illicit liquor. He asserts that he did not transport any prohibited items for unlawful gain and that the allegations are baseless and yet to be established before a competent criminal Court. According to the petitioner, the seizure of the vehicle is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. Despite approaching the concerned authorities seeking interim custody of the vehicle, his request was not considered and the vehicle is allegedly kept in an open place exposed to sun and rain, resulting in the risk of damage. Having no efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the seizure of the vehicle and registration of Crime No.300 of 2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondents to release the vehicle to him.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the subject vehicle and is solely dependent on it for his livelihood. It is contended that the petitioner had no knowledge of the alleged illegal contents found in the vehicle and had neither ownership nor conscious possession of the same. Mere transportation of goods, in the absence of knowledge or involvement in any illegal activity, does not attract criminal liability, as the essential element of mens rea is lacking. It is further submitted that the continued seizure of the vehicle is arbitrary and causing undue hardship to the petitioner, as prolonged detention would render the vehicle unusable and seriously affect his livelihood. The learned counsel submi