IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.5198 of 2026 DATE: 19.02.2026 Between:

Mr. Kancha Ravi.

...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others.

…Respondents

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “…to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in not directing the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to release the four wheeler Hyundai Venue car bearing Registration No.TS24F-6123 seized under Crime in F.I.R.No.489 of 2025 P.S. Inthezargunj inspite of the readiness to furnish the third party surety as being illegal and arbitrary consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to order for release of the vehicle to the Petitioner …”

2. Heard Sri Ch.Jagannath Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arun Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

Perused the record.

3. The petitioner claims to be the registered owner of Hyundai Venue car bearing Registration No.TS24F-6123. The said vehicle was seized in F.I.R.No.489 of 2025 which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of TS Excise Act, 1968 (for short “the Act, 1968”) against the petitioner alleging that five (5) boxes containing IMFL bottles are being transported in the said vehicle by the petitioner with an intention to sell them at higher rates at nearby places of his residence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and if the vehicle is not released, he 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 Rajasthan¹, Kishore Kumar Choudhury v. State of Orissa² and Waish Ahmed v. State of West Bengal³, 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 the various High Courts and Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions stated supra, this Court is inclined to grant interim custody of Hyundai Venue car bearing Registration No.TS24F-6123 which was seized in F.I.R.No.489 of 2025 on the file of respondent No.5, in favour of the petitioner on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of respondent No.2 - 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, respondent No.2 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 either by the Investigating Agency or by the Court and also give an undertaking that he will not alienate, encumber or alter the physical features of the vehicle.

(iv) After release, if the petitioner’s subject vehicle is involved in similar offence, the respondents are entitled to file an ap