IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 7086 of 2009 Between: Ganthi Laxmi Reddy . .Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7086 of 2009 ORDER : Heard Sri N.Ashwartha Narayana, learned counsel representing Sri S.Nageswara Reddy learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the 3rd respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 are stated to be not necessary parties to this petition as they stated before the trial Court itself through their learned counsel that they have no objection for ordering return of the property to the petitioner. 2 ) The petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicle in question in the custody of the Court in P.R.C.No.23 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur. The petitioner filed two petitions before the trial Court for interim custody of the vehicle. But, both were dismissed. In the later order in Crl.M.P.No.825 of 2009, dated 22.08.2009, the Court noted that either the state or the accused did not file any counter and did not express any objection for the return of the property. Still the trial Court felt that the motor bike was seized at the instance of the accused and the seized vehicle is connected with the killing of the deceased. Therefore, it was opined that the return of the vehicle would ruin the prosecution case. 3) The petitioner contends that if the vehicle is kept unattended and unused in the custody of the Court till the finality of the criminal proceedings, it will be totally destroyed and deteriorated. The petitioner further submits that whenever required, he will produce the same before the Court. 4) Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor stated, on instructions, that the prosecution has no objection in entrusting the interim custody to the petitioner subject to appropriate conditions. 5) In fact, the Apex Court has laid down in SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[1] that in case of vehicles seized in crimes, they should not be allowed to become junk day by day by being kept unattended and unused in the premises of the police stations. The Supreme Court fixed a time limit of Six months for passing appropriate orders under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure expeditiously and judiciously. 6) The property has to be preserved for the benefit of the successful party at the end of the proceedings and how the interim custody of the vehicle can destroy the prosecution story is unintelligible. 6) Therefore, Hero Honda Splender Plus motor cycle bearing No.AP 21 Q 4762 in the custody of the Court in P.R.C. No.23 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrateof First Class, Alampur shall be entrusted to the interim custody of the petitioner on execution of a personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur and further subject to the petitioner undertaking to produce the vehicle whenever directed by the Court and not to change its physical features in the meanwhile and to maintain the vehicle in the same physical state till the finality of the criminal proceedings and also not to alienate and encumber the vehicle in any manner. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. __________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 16, 2009 KSH [1] (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 283