p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 809 of 2023 Sweta Ketu Rout …. Petitioner Mr. Ashok Kumar Behera -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Inspector-in-Charge, Pipili Police Station 3. Regional Transport Officer, Puri 4. Gourisankar Nayak 5. Pradipta Kumar Jena …. Opposite Parties Mr. Saroj Kumar Rout, Additional Standing Counsel (For Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3) None (For Opposite Party No.5) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. ORDER 05.02.2026 08. (Through hybrid mode) 1. The Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders under Annexure-4 series and Annexure-6 passed in G.R. Case No.336 of 2013 by learned JMFC, Pipili and for a direction to the IIC, Pipli Police Station to produce the vehicle bearing registration No.OR04D 9787 before the learned JMFC, Pipili. Page 2 of 5 2. By order dated 29.09.2014, the vehicle was directed to be released in favour of Opposite Party No.5. By order dated 22.02.2016, the application of the Petitioner for release of the same vehicle has been rejected by the learned JMFC, Pipili. 3. Perusal of the order dated 29.09.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.15 of 2014 by the learned J.M.F.C., Pipili reveals that while releasing the vehicle in question in favour of the Opposite Party No.5-Pradipta Kumar Jena, the following conditions have been imposed. “(I) The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) with surety bond of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs) only and to deposit cash security of Rs.50,000/-. (II) He shall not change the make, model and colour of the said vehicle as well as the engine no. and chassis no.; (III). He shall not sell or encumber the vehicle in any manner; (IV) He shall not use the said vehicle in any illegal or immoral purposes; and (V) He shall produce the vehicle before the court as and when required by this court. Page 3 of 5 (VI) He shall furnishing the Insurance certificate of the said vehicle within 15 days of release of vehicle and ply the vehicle on road after submitting the insurance certificate. 4. On 22.02.2016, the application of the Petitioner for release of the vehicle has been rejected on the ground that the Petitioner could not establish that the vehicle belongs to him and a new chassis number had been written on the truck bearing registration No. OR- 04D9787. 5. It is pointed out by Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner that on 05.04.2016 on production of the indemnity bond, the vehicle in question has been released in custody of Opposite Party No.5-Pradipta Kumar Jena. 6. Condition No.(III) and (V) in the order dated 29.04.2014 are that Opposite Party No.5 shall not sell or encumber the vehicle in any manner and shall produce the vehicle before the Court as and when required. 7. Perused the report dated 04.02.2026 of the IIC, Pipili Police Station, which is extracted below. “xx xx xx With reference to the letter and subject cited above I have the honour to submit that as per memo No-4609 dtd.30.01.2026, I enquired into the p. 4 matter. During enquiry it is found that one Pradipta Kumar Jena who had taken zima of the Truck in question has already disposed off the same. During verification of PS case record No-216/2013, I could not find the report of expert of Tata Motors PVT LTD. The case has been charge sheeted in the year 2014 and the Truck has been Left in Zima in the year 2016. The said Truck is not available for my inspection and getting other information regarding the same. This is for favour of your kind information and necessary action.” 8. From the report it is apparent that Opposite Party No.5- Pradipta Kumar Jena, in whose favour the truck had been released, has disposed of the same for which the truck was not available for inspection by the IIC, Pipili Police Station. This is in apparent violation of condition No.III. 9. Neither the learned counsel for the Petitioner nor the learned State Counsel have instructions whether the said G.R. case is still pending or has been disposed of in the meanwhile. 10. None appears on behalf of Opposite Party No.5 even though Mr. Sambit Ray, Advocate and his associate have filed Vakalatnama on his behalf. Page 5 of 5 11. If the GR case is still pending, it is open to the Petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate for a direction for production of the vehicle which has been released in the custody of Opposite Party No.5-Pradipta Kumar Jena. In case the Opposite Party No.5 has not or does not comply with the conditions imposed, it is open to the learned Magistrate to invoke the indemnity bond. 12. If the G.R. case has been finally disposed of, it is open to the Petitioner to challenge the final order if he is aggrieved by any direction in the said order. 13. With the aforesaid observation, the CRLMC is disposed of. (Savitri Ratho) Judge RKS