Y. Sudhakar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 April, 2025

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Y. Sudhakar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 April, 2025

APHC010189632025
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                    AT AMARAVATI                       [3457]
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                   MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL
                      TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

                                  PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

                       CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4072/2025

Between:

Y. Sudhakar                                       ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

                                    AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh                ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following Order:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the

petitioner herein seeking to direct the respondent to release the vehicle

bearing No.AP 39 TH 9079 which was seized in connection with Crime No.14

of 2025 of Isvi Police Staiton, Kurnool District, registered for the offence

punishable under Section 318(4) read with 3(5) of BNS and Section 7(1) of the

Essential Commodities Act.

2

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

the registered owner of the subject vehicle and that if the vehicle is exposed to

sun and air, it gets damaged. It is his further submission that the petitioner is

ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court, if the

vehicle is ordered for interim custody. He placed reliance on the decision of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of

Gujarat1.

4. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the

petitioner stating that investigation is pending.

5. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 7(1) of the

Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Truth or otherwise of the allegations has to

be decided during the course of investigation and trial. Admittedly, petitioner

herein is the owner of the subject vehicle. If the vehicle is exposed to sun or

air keeping in police station or court premises, unused, there is every

possibility of the same getting damaged. Therefore, in the interest of justice,

the vehicle can be ordered to be given for the interim custody of the petitioner,

however, by imposing certain conditions.

6. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed. The subject vehicle

bearing No.AP 39 TH 9079 which was seized in connection with Crime No.14

1
AIR 2003 SC 638
3

of 2025 of Isvi Police Staiton, Kurnool District, is ordered to be given to the

interim custody of the petitioner-

a) on his producing the Original R.C. and executing a self
bond for the value of the subject vehicle to be assessed by
the Motor Vehicle Inspector, with two sureties for the like
sum each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate
concerned;

b) on his executing an undertaking that he would not alienate
the said vehicle or transfer its ownership or change any
physical features of the vehicle; and

c) on his executing an undertaking that he would produce the
vehicle as and when directed by the trial Court till the case
is disposed of, in the trial Court.

7. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

shall stand closed.

___________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dated : 21.04.2025
BMS