CRLP/15063/2026 of Ponnala Siddarth, Vs The State of Telangana on 7 October 2026

ORDER

This criminal Petition has been filed to set aside the impugned order passed by the leamed I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in crl.M.p.No.222 of 2026 dated 10.07.2026 and, to direct the concemed authorities to release the vehicle of the petitioner, namely, Maruthi Suzuki Ciaz Car, bearing Regiskation No.TS-10_Ey_9191, which was seized in Crime No.l49 of 2026, of Mokila police Station, Future ciry Police Commisionerate.

2. Heard Mr. G. Santosh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and I\zlr.Jithendar Rao veeramalla, leamed Additional public prosecutor for the respondent. Behveen:

wrth the consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of a vehicle, namely, Maruthi Suzuki Ciaz Car' bearing Registration No. TS-10-EY-9191, which was seized by the Police' Mokila Station, Future City Police Commissionerate, in Crime No'149 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(b)' 20(b)(iD(A) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act' 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act'). He further submitted that the petitioner was never involved in the transportation of the alteged contraband in the subject vehicle but the police illegally registered the case against the accused No.1 and thereby seized the vehicle of the petitioner'

4.1. He further submitted that the since the petitioner is a State Level and National level Tennis player and is presently working as a Superintendent in the Railway Department' It is further submitted that he purchased the said vehicle out of his hard-eamed money and that the vehicle is required for his day-to-day use He uses the said vehicle for attending his Tennis Practice and going to his office and also keeps his sports kit and reievant materials therein' The said vehicle is under the custody of Mokila P.S. since 29'03'2026' Unless the said vehicle is released, the petitioner will be put to great hardship' He further submitted ?!4'|FE!!!.!FF lrEttt a that the petitioner had approached the leamed I Additional District and Sessions .Iudge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar by filing an application vrrle cr1.M.P.No.222 of 2026 in crime No.149 of 2026, seeking interim custody of the subject vehicle, and the said Court had rlismissed the petition vide its order dated r0.07.2026, on the ground that the petitioner has to approach the Drug Disposal Committee and that the said court is not having jurisdiction. Though the leamed trial court is having jurisdiction, the leamed trial Court, without deciding the application on merits, refurned the- same, and the same is contrary to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court il Denash v. State of T'amil L,adu t.

Leamed Additional public prosecutor has not disputed the strbmissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioner.

6. 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-10-EY-9191, and the said vehicle was seized in respect of crime No. 149 of 2026 on the alleged ground that the police seized the co'traband fiom the said vehicle. It reveals from the record that the petitioner had approached the leamed trial Court and filed an application | 20:t5 Lawsuit (S() 14 t I

seeking interim custody of the vehicle, and the leamed trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner ought to have approached the Drug Disposal Committee. \

7. 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'

8. 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 Mokila P.S. since 29'03'2026, and this Court is inclined to grant interim custody of the vehicle, namely, Maruthi Suzuki Craz Car, bearing Registration No. TS-10-EY-9191, in favour of the petitioner on his executing a personal bond lor a sum of Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learaed 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- i!G!-GT'ETE lnspeclor of Police, Mokila Police Station, Fuflre City Polce Commissionerate shall write to the RTA Authority not to transfer the said vehicle in favour ofany third parfy 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 concemed Court whenever required

9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pendrng miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL, DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, (fu-" sEc FFICER 1 . The 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B.Nagar

2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate At Chevella

3. The Station House Officer, Mokila Police Station, Future City 4 One CC to SRI G SANTOSH REDDY, Advocate IOPUC]

5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies ADK

HIGH COURT DATED: 0711012026

ORDER

CRLP.No.15063 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRLP I ' t ].i-. ,..'l' ,1 \a.

1. i2m lr \e. 10 \aa