IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.11577 of 2026 DATE OF ORDER: 16.04.2026 Between: Jogu Ravi ...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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent authorities in not releasing the petitioners Bike TVS Jupiter Classic Bearing vehicle No. TS-01-EQ-2304, Seized in FIR.No.93 of 2026, on the file of 3^rd respondent, inspite of the readiness of the petitioner to furnish the third party surety, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust, and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release the vehicle, and to grant.…”

2. Heard Sri Gajanand Chakravarthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Arun Kumar, 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 Jupiter Classic vehicle bearing registration No.TS 01 EQ 2304. On 07.02.2026 at 20:00 hours respondent No.3 registered a case in Crime No.93 of 2026 under Sections 223, 174 BNS and Section 34(a) of TS Excise, under the guise that the accused-Sachin was in illegal transportation of I.M.F.L liquor. 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 and kept in custody 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 kept in custody by respondent No.3. 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 categorica