A seized vehicle should be released to its registered owner if the owner is not an accused in the crime, to prevent the vehicle's deterioration in police custody, subject to providing adequate security and bonds.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “….pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the in action of the 2nd respondent to release the Petitioners Vehicle Bearing No. TG 29 T 7773 in COR No.2026, dated. 08-04-2026, seized of petitioners vehicle was being illegal, arbitrary and just also Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct 2nd respondent to release of the vehicle to the petitioner forthwith, and pass such other or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.…”

2. Heard Ms. Madhavi, learned counsel representing Sri Laxmaiah Kanchani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and 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 disposed of at the admission stage.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner of Bolero Maxx Pup City 1.5 vehicle bearing registration No.TG 29T 7773 and Chasis No.MA1RB2TUk56M32037. On 08.04.2026 at 3:15 P.M respondent No.3 registered a case in Crime No.78 of 2026 under Sections 7(a) read with 8(e) of TG Prohibition Act, 1995 and 34(e) of TS Excise Act, 1968 , under the guise that the accused persons were in illegal transportation of Black Jaggery 36 bags – each bag contains 50 kgs) and ID liquor (10 liters). 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 eking out his livelihood 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 Black Jaggery and ID 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 Jaggery and ID 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 t