IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Date: 20-02-2026 Between:

Pabba Ramadevi ...petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others.

...respondents

ORDER

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

“..............to declare the inaction of the 3^rd respondent in not releasing the vehicle of the petitioner under section 46-E of The Telangana Excise Act, 1968 in COR No.39/2026, dated 13.02.2026 U/s.34 (a) of TS Excise Act, 1968 as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the petitioners vehicle Mahindra and Mahindra Model XUV700 bearing Registration No. TG03C0124 seized in COR No.39/2026, dated 13.02.2026 on the file of 4^th respondent, and pass such other orders.”

2. Heard Sri Narendar Jalli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shilpa, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

3. The petitioner claims to be the registered owner of Mahindra and Mahindra Model XUV700 bearing Registration No. TG03C0124. The said vehicle was seized in COR.No.39 of 2026 which was registered for the offences punishable under Section 34 (a) of TS Excise Act, 1968 (for short “the Act, 1968”) alleging that the accused were bringing HDPL liquor in three trolley bags (23 bottles) of non-duty paid liquor of various brands.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and she is not the accused in the said crime, and if the vehicle is not released, it would be put to irreparable loss. He submits that if the vehicle is exposed to air, sun and rain, there is every possibility of the vehicle getting damaged and hence, seeks interim custody of the vehicle. He further relied on the decisions reported in Jagtar Singh, Son of Dhyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2017 Law Suit (Raj.) 2379, Kishore Kumar Choudhury v. State of Orissa, 2017 Law Suit (Ori.) 240 and Waish Ahmed v. State of West Bengal, 2017 Law Suit (Cal.) 22, wherein the High Courts of Rajasthan, Orissa and Calcutta, released the vehicles seized under the Act, on certain terms and conditions. Further, in Surenderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat,, (2002) 10 SCC 283 the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that in case of vehicle seized during investigation, it should not be allowed to deterioration and kept unused and unattended in the premises of the Police Station. Therefore, the vehicle has to be entrusted to the interim custody of the petitioner subject to certain conditions.

5. Since there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the vehicle and having regard to the principles laid down by various High Courts and Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions stated supra, this Court is inclined to grant interim custody of Mahindra and Mahindra Model XUV700 bearing Registration No. TG03C0124 which was seized in COR.No.39 of 2026 on the file of the 4^th respondent- Prohibition and Exercise Inspector, Station Meerpet, Ranga Reddy District, in favour of the petitioner on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the 2^nd respondent-the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Telangana State at Hyderabad.

(ii) The petitioner shall deposit the original Registration Certificate of the vehicle in the Court. However, the 2nd respondent shall issue a certified copy of the registration certificate to the petitioner so that no inconvenience is caused to him while using the vehicle.

(iii) The petitioner shall give an undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required eith