Kasam Abhiram vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition has been filed to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in Crl.M.P.No.169 of 2026 dated 19.06.2026 and to direct the respondent No.2 to release the vehicle of the petitioner, namely, Volkswagen Car, bearing Registration No.TS-09-ET-7711, which was seized in Crime No.349 of 2026, of Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad.

Heard Mr.S.M.Saifullah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

With the consent of both the learned counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of a vehicle, namely, Volkswagen Car, bearing Registration No.TS-09-ET-7711, which was seized by the Police, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad, in Crime No.349 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w. 22 (c) and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act'). He further submitted that the petitioner is using the said vehicle for his day-to-day use to maintain his family and the said vehicle is under the custody of respondent No.2. Unless the said vehicle is released, the petitioner will be put to great hardship. He further submitted that the petitioner had approached the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar by filing an application vide Crl.M.P.No.169 of 2026 in Crime No.349 of 2026, seeking interim custody of the subject vehicle, and the said Court had dismissed the petition vide its order dated 19.06.2026, on the ground that the petitioner has to approach the Drug Disposal Committee and that the said Court is not having jurisdiction. Though the learned trial Court is having jurisdiction, the learned trial Court, without deciding the application on merits, returned the same, and the same is contrary to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu^{11.2025 LawSuit (SC) 1411}.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not disputed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it reveals that, even according to the parties, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TS-09-ET-7711, and the said vehicle was seized in respect of Crime No.349 of 2026 on the alleged ground that the Police seized the contraband from the said vehicle. The record further reveals that the petitioner had approached the learned trial Court on 19.06.2026 and filed an application seeking interim custody of the vehicle, and the learned trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner ought to have approached the Drug Disposal Committee.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Denash's case (supra), held that the Special Courts under the NDPS Act retain the jurisdiction to grant interim custody of the seized vehicle, which was involved under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The learned trial Court, without following the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), mechanically dismissed the application. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court ought to have considered the said application filed by the petitioner and decided the matter in accordance with law.

Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and also the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner's vehicle has been under the custody of respondent No.2, and this Court is inclined to grant interim custody of the vehicle, namely, Volkswagen Car, bearing Registration No.TS-09-ET-7711, in favour of the petitioner on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking that he shall not alienate the said vehicle or change its physical features. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate shall write to the RTA Authority not to transfer the said vehicle in favour of any third party without clearance from the Court. It is needless to state that the petitioner shall produce the said vehicle before the Investigating Officer or before the concerned Court whenever required.

Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.