CRLRC 277 / 2016 CRLRCSR 3188 / 2016 CASE IS:DISPOSED
BHANOTHU BHUKYA, NALGONDA DT., VS THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REP PP.,
PET.ADV. : SREENIVASULU RESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.277 of 2016
The petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Case by invoking
the provisions under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal
Procedure Code being aggrieved by the docket order dated
19.01.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2016 in Crime No.14 of
2016 by the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri.
2. Heard and perused the material available on record.
3. Petitioner herein filed the impugned application under
Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before
the Court below seeking to give interim custody of the case
property i.e., goods carrier vehicle bearing No.AP29 TB 6900,
which was dismissed by the Court below vide impugned order.
Challenging the same, present revision is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and if the vehicle is kept idle
for a long period, there is every possibility of it getting damaged.
He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish
sufficient surety and also produce the vehicle as and when
required by the Court.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor objects for the same,
since the vehicle is involved in a crime.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
even though the vehicle is liable to be confiscated, no prejudice
would caused for investigation if the vehicle is released for interim
custody. Therefore, it is directed that the goods carrier vehicle
No.AP29 TB 6900, shall be released for interim custody of the
petitioner, subject to final orders to be passed in the main case, on
petitioner executing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
one lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction
of the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri and
also on production of original R.C. book. It is further directed that
the petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle, shall not change the
physical features of the same till the disposal of the criminal case
and further the petitioner shall undertake to produce the vehicle as
and when required by the Court. However, it is made clear that
the present order will not stand in the way of any confiscation
proceedings. If already confiscation orders are passed, the order
need not be given effect to.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand
RAJA ELANGO, J
th January, 2016