1 / 4 2025:CGHC:4688 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 11 of 2025 1 - Uma Tiwari W/o Late Ashwani Kumar Tiwari Aged About 49 Years C/o (Through ) Shubham Shau, R/o Ward No . 15, Near Saroj Kirana Store Gali No.2, New Mannadol, Tifra P.S. Sirgitti Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Gourela, District Gourela, Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate For State : Mr. G.L. Uike, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 27/01/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita by the applicant assailing the order dated 08/10/2024 passed by the Special Judge N.D.P.S., Bilaspur, C.G. in criminal case No.304/2024 whereby the application for supurdnama filed by the applicant has been rejected. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the Investigation Officer seized 106 KG cannabis from the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.19/BD- 9900 and M.P. 65/ZB-6852, which was being transported by the accused persons namely Banwarilal Gupta, Rohit Kumar Gupta, Ankur Jaitwar, Vedprakash @ Daddu Tiwari and Gopal @ Gopi Panika. Thereafter, the vehicle of the applicant was seized. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.01.28 18:04:40 +0530 2 / 4 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the investigation officer raised objection that he has sent memo to the Collector to confiscate the vehicles but the trial has not started yet and the confiscation proceedings will be started after the trial. He would next contend that despite passing of more than 2 & ½ months the applicant has not received any information from the Collector regarding confiscation of vehicle. He would next contend that the applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.19/BD-9900 and the said vehicle is lying in the open place, therefore, the same would be damaged because of rust and weather. He would lastly contend that the impugned order may be set aside and the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.19/BD-9900 of the applicant may be released on Supurdnama. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs.State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, in para 7 and 17 has laid down guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by police. For ready reference, the relevant portion is reproduced below:- “7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: 1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; 2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. if proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepare, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court 3 / 4 during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of property in detail; 4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police station for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.” 7. Similar stand has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, reported in 2013 (3) SCC 240, wherein the Supreme Court has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the Police Station in open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of weather conditions for a long period. 8. In the instant case, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that no useful purpose would be served if the vehicle is allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the vehicle can be released to the applicant, who is claiming himself to be the owner of the vehicle. It is also pertinent to mention here that in this case it is found that the vehicle is left for natural decay for a long period of time and no substantive action has been taken and the vehicle is still left for irreparable damages. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai (supra), the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 08/10/2024 passed by the Court below is hereby set-aside. It is directed that the 4 / 4 Vehicle Mahindra XUV 500 bearing registration No.C.G. 19/BD-9900 is having a cost of 18.00 Lakhs, therefore, the vehicle be released in favour of the applicant, as interim custody on the following conditions:- (i) Before release of the vehicle, the documents pertaining to ownership of the said vehicle be verified and proper Panchnama of the vehicles be made. (ii) Photographs of the vehicles should be taken and bond should also be produced that the vehicles would be produced as and when required. (iii) Proper security i.e. personal bond of Rs.15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) and equivalent surety be obtained before release of vehicle from the applicant. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is allowed. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu