Telangana High Court
CRLRC/921/2025 of SylvestorSavio Ross Vs The State of Telangana, on 22 December 2025
COURT FOR TI{E STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:920.921.922. 925 & 926 0F 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 920 0F 2025: Revision filed under
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TI{E STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:920.921.922. 925 & 926 0F 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 920 0F 2025:
Revision filed under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS., aggrieved by the order dated 1111112025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. .555 of 2025 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
Between:
Dennis Joseph, S/o Daniel, Age 32 yrs Occ. Sales Executive, R/o H.No. 1-8- 702133121 , Padma Colony Near Shankar Matt market, I'lew Nallakunta PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.6
AND
The State of Telangana,, through Prohibition and Excise Station, Chevella, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 921 OF 2025
Revision filed under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS., aggrieved by the Order dated 1111112025 passed in Cd.M.P. No. 557 of 2025 on the file of the leamed IAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
Between:
Sylvestor Savio Ross, Sio Antony Ross, Age. 37 yrs, Occ. lT Employee, R/o
H. No. 8-4-369/450 Swaraj Nagar, Opposite to Police Station, Site 2, Borabanda, Telangana.
AND
PETITIONER/Accused No.S
RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 922OF 2025l.
Revision filed under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS., z1 grieved by the order daled 3111012025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 516 of 2025 on le, file of the learried I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Distric .
Between:
The State of Telangana,, through Prohibition and Excisr> Station, Chevella, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderaba(l fa$! Ggyal, S/o Sudheer Kumar Goyal Age. 28 yrs, ( c,c.tT Emptoyee, R/o 3137/3 Sector 44D Chandigarh Sdctor,47 (Present Aclress- Flat No. 41 1, 4191115, Attapur PET|Tlr )NER/Accused No.3
AND
The State of Telangana,, through Prohibition and Excise r itation, Chevelta, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabac 4bhij.it Benerjee, S{o Latg B. Ravindranath Benerjee Ap=. 32 years, Occ. lT
Employee, R/o A-13/G1, Swetha Apartments, RK purani riear EiOl, Malkalgiri.
PETITI( NER:/Accused No.1
RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:925 OF 2025:.
Revision filed under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS., a3 ;.ieved by the order dated 11-'1 'l -2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 556 ot 2025 on il^ : file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Distrir;.
Between:
AND
The State of Telan
Rep.. by its Public
gana, through Prohibition and Excise S tation, Chevella, Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 926 OF 2025;
Revision filed under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS., aggrieved by the Order dated 11-11-2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 554 ot 2025 on thefile of the learne{
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
Between:
Gunde Simpson Rodricks, Sio. Prabhakar, aged about 38 years, Occ. lT
Employee, R/o. Plot No. 193 AND 194, Rao s Sri Nilaya Apartments, Maruthinagar, Flat No. 203, Moulali PETITIONER/Accused No.2
AND
The State of Telangana, through Prohibition and Excise Station, Chevella, Rep.. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner :
Counsel for the Respondent :
MS. P SREE RAMYA
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEl ANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWAD! gRrpEV!
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.920 921 922 925 r nd 926 of 2025
22 DECEMBER.2025
Between:
Dennis Joseph and four others
Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana, through
Prohibition and Excise Station Chevella
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor
Respondent
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
: COMMON ORDER:
Challenging the prders dated 11 .11 .2( 25 passed in Crl lt4.P.Nos 555, 556, 557 and 554 of 2025, and tlre order dated 31 .10 2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.516 of 2025 in Crim -' No.88 of 2025 of P S Excise, Chevella, by the learned I Additional Dist ict and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (for shorl 'trial Court'), the present Criminal Revision Cases are filed, and conr;, ,quently lo grant interim custody of the said mobile phones to the inter n custody of the petrtioners by imposing appropriate conditions.
Heard Ms. P.Sree Ramya, learned counsel f rr the petitioners and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional f ublic Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the recorc
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.08'2025, upon receiving credible information, the STF Hyderabad Team proceeded to the premises i.e., Serene Orchards Farm House, Plot No.49, North East Park, Medipally Village, Moinabad Mandal, and seized 0.05 grams of LSD, 20.21 grams of Hashish' six mobile phones, and three cars from the possession of the petitioners-accused Nos l to 3, 5 and 6 and accused No.4- Basing on the said seizure, a case in crime No.88 of 2025 was registered against the petitioners and others. Thereafter, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 filed applications in Crl.M,P.Nos.5tO, Si+, 555, 556 and 557 oI 2025 seeking interim custody of the seized mobile phones. However' the same were dismissed by the trial Court by the impugned orders Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal revision cases have been filed'
4. LearnedcounselforthepetitionerssubmitsthatthetrialCourt erred in dismissing the applications filed by the petitioners seeking interim custody of their mobile phones, despite the petitioners being the owners of the seized mobile phones, especially when the same are personal and essential instruments used for day{o-day communicalion' work, banking, and personal safety. lt is a settled principle of law that when ownership of seized property is not in dispute and its production during trial can be ensured by execution of personal bond or by furnishing sureties, interim custody ought to be granted Hence' learned €.4
counsel prayed to grant interim custody of the seizecl tobile phones to the petitioners by allowing the present criminil revisior cases.
On the other hand, learned Additional F ublic Prosecutor submits that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3,5 anl6 are consumers of narcotic drugs and the investigation is still und,.' progress. The mobile phones seized from the petitioners are cr J ;ial evidence for retrieving data relating to the drug peddlers involved ir the illicit trade of narcotic drugs. He further submits that the release oI nobile phones to the petitioners at this stage may hamper the ongoing it vestigation. After due consideration of the facts and circumstances of he case, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the applications filed t y the petitioners seeking interim custody of their mobile phones, ert cl the impugned orders do not warrant any interference by this Court. lence, he prayed to dismiss the present criminal revision cases ln a case involving narcotic substances, it is inperative that the investigating agency be afforded sufficient liberty t r investigate and unravel the full contours of the conspiracy, includin,t its connections, financial transactions, communication networks, anc the identities of other people involved in the illicit trade. Premature irl:rference with the investigation, particularly in relation to the seized mo rilg phones which may contain crucial evidence, would seriously hamp,r r the progress of the ongoing investigation. Having regard to these <;i cumstances, this l- :t/
Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality, infirmity, or impropriety in the impugned orders passed by the trial Court warranting interference by this Court at this stage.
7. Accordingly, all the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file an appropriate application seeking interim custody of their mobile phones upon completion of investigation. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY RE;TISTRAR /-. I t-J SECTIOI{-OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, L'B' Nagar, Hyderabad. 2 ohe CC to SRl. P SREE RAMYA Advocate [OPUC]
5. i*o CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI
4. Two CD CoPies ASR/ BA -&D , l i I I i I ,l I I I I ! I I I I 'l I l il I I i t T I I !
HIGH COURT DATED:2211212025
ORDER
CRLRC.No.920, 921,922 925 & 926 0F 2025 DISMISSING THE CRLRCs -,[<. '//r-e { c:. 'i:i R TH nf E 5 ,J c *