WP/24318/2026 of Bhukya Veeranna, Vs The state of Telangana, on 28 July 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief "...to lssue a writ, order or direction, more pafticularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, or any other appropriate Writ, declaring that the action of the respondent /Vo.3 ls unlavvfully seizing the vehicle that is Bajaj Pulsar 220F (Black and Red Color) and same ls not registered vrde Chassls No. MD2A1 3EX6TCL7 51 37 and Engine No. DKXCTL294 1 5 in COR No.493 of 2026 dated 04-07-2026., for the offence under Section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 and Section 34(E) T S. Excise Act, 1968. the same vehicle is under the custody of { respondent and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not releasing the above said vehicle, it is contrary to law, i egal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to release the vehicle in favor of petitioner No.1 and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".

2. Heard Sri.Raveendhar Malothu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. P. Vishal Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Department RRN,J

of Prohibition and Excise, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the owner of the seized vehicle. while petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in COR No.493 ol 2026. Petitioner No.2 had borrowed the vehicle from petitioner No.1 for a medical emergency, and the latter had no knowledge that it would allegedly be used for any unlawlul activity

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits lhat petitioner No.1 has no connection with the alleged offence and that the seizure of the vehicle is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure established by law and also disputed the allegations against petitioner Nos.2 and 3.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the vehicle is the sole source of livelihood and daily transportation for petitioner No.1 and his family. and its continued detention would cause irreparable financial loss and deterioration of the vehicle. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner No.1 unde(akes to produce the vehicle as and when required, not to alienate or alter it, and to abide by any conditions imp,osed by this court. He, therefore prayed this court to direct the respondents to release the seized vehicle in favour of petitioner No.1, subject to such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit.

J RRN,J

6. ln support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the ,iudgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. state of Guiaratl , wherein it was held that it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period and appropriate orders should be passed for their release by taking appropriate bond,guaranteeandsecurity,ifrequired.Healsoplacesrel|anceuponthe judgments of this Court in B. Dasu v' The State of Telangana & 2 Others (W.P.No.21835 of 2021), Akkera Raiesh v' Ihe State of Telangana (W.P.No.5739 of 2024) and Rachuri Sunil v' The State of Telangana M.P.No.26992 of 2025)'

7. Since there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the vehicle and having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this court in the decisions referred to above, this court is inclined to grant interim custody of Bajaj Pulsar 220F (Black and Red Color)' which is not registered vide Chassis No.MD2A1 3EXOTCL75137 and Engine No.DKXCTL28415,seizedinCoRNo.493o12026dated04,07.2026onthe file of Respondent No.3-Station House Officer, Mahabubabad Police Station' Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubabad District, in favour of petitioner No'1' subject to the following conditions: ' (2002) ro scc 281

l RRN,J

(i) The petitioner No.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,0001 (Rupees Twenty thousand onry) with one surety for a rike sum to the satisfaction of the 2nd respondent The Deputy' Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubabad District, Telangana rState

(ii) The petitioner No 1 shall give an undertaking to produce the vehicle bearing Chassis No,MD2A13EX6TCL7S137 and Engine No.DKXCTL28415 as and when required by the lnvestig,ating Agency or the competent court and also give an undertaking that he will not to alienate, encumber or alter the physical features of the vehicle.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shail be no order as to costs [\4iscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand r;losed SD/,K.BHAVANI SWAMY Sstsrarur REGTSTRAR I \\ -.-.+'-=- //TRUE COPY// \ To V SECTION oFFlcER The Principal Secretary, Department of Prohibition ard Excise, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Deputy Commissioner of the Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubabad District, Having office at Warangal, T.G. The Station House officer, of the P.S. Mahabubabad, Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubabad District, T.G. One CC to SRI MALOTHU RAVEENDAR, Advocate [OPLIC] Two CCs to GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies q b SK. SK %

CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 2810712026

ORDER

WP.No.24318 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. e 4r€ itre sr r1JUt2 _)o t) ).,1 za:

2. --:_, -:- t Z\ vk +