1 2025:CGHC:25790 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1478 of 2025 • Shankar Prasad Rathour S/o Eatu Rathour Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Village- Senduri, Chhulha, District- Anuppur (M.P.) ... Petitioner versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- Kotwali, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr.Gaurav Singhal, Advocate For State : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 19.06.2025 1. The petitioner has been preferred this instant petition under Section 528 of BNS, 2023 being aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Surguja, Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) in Suprudnama Application No. 87/2024 (Crime No. 402/2024), whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the supurdnama application filed by the petitioner. 2. The case in nutshell is that, on 18.06.2024, the offending vehicle (Maruti Ertiga) bearing registration No.CG-10-BQ-7587 was seized by police officials of Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur, based on receiving a secret information by the SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.06.20 12:35:02 +0530 2 informant. The driver fled, but the vehicle was seized containing 49.680 kg of ganja (marijuana) packed in 50 packets. During the investigation, two accused namely Rahul soni and Anshul Shukla, were arrested as the vehicle’s occupants and case under Section 20(c) of the NDPS Act has been registered against the accused. The petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and he filed an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court for taking Supurdnama of the said vehicle, and categorically stated that he is registered owner of the said vehicle and hence he is entitled to take his vehicle which has been seized by the police but was consequently rejected by the learned trial Court. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the offending vehicle, and he is having a valid and effective documents required for the said vehicle, therefore, he is entitled for the Supurdnama. He next submits that at the time of incident, the offending car of petitioner was taken on rent by the accused Anshul Shukla for some personal work and the petitioner nowhere involved in transportation of the cannabis and in commission of the alleged offence. The seized vehicle is machinery property and due to its lying idle in an open place, its machinery parts are being deteriorated day to day, therefore, it will be appropriate to release the vehicle on Supurdnama. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned order. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by counsel for the parties and further considering the order passed by the Hon'ble 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 Chhateady 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: i. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; ii. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; iii. 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 during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of property in detail; and iv. 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 4 vehicle in the Police Station in open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of whether conditions for a long period. 8. Recently in the matter of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can proved that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner’s knowledge and has held in para 25 as under:- 25. Upon a reading of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view that the seized vehicles can be confiscated by the trial court only on conclusion of the trial when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. Further, even where the court is of the view that the vehicle is liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity of hearing to the person who may claim any right to the seized vehicle before passing an order of confiscation. However, the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner's knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the seized vehicle by the accused person. 9. In the instant case, it is pertinent to mention the most important fact of the case that the offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG-10-BQ-7587 was seized on 18.06.2024 and the petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused, and there has no objection to his ownership and he has a right to raise any other grounds and also reserving to submit all relevant documents and it is also necessary to note that no useful purpose would be served if the said vehicle is allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the said vehicle can be released to the petitioner, who is claiming himself to be the owner of the article, so that he can 5 use it and the said vehicle does not become junk after some time. It is also pertinent to mention here that in this case, it is found that the said vehicle is left for natural decay for a long period of time and no substantive action has been taken and the said vehicle is still left for irreparable damages. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai (Supra) and Bishwajit Dey (Supra), the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 14.08.2024, passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Surguja, Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) in Crime No. 402/2024 is hereby set aside. 10. In view of the above, it is directed that the said vehicle be immediately be released in favour of the petitioner as interim custody on the following condition that the petitioner would furnish a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- with one surety as Supurdnama in the concerned Trial Court, keeping in view that there must not be any alteration in the physical appearance of the said vehicle. It is also pertinent that the said vehicle shall be submitted by the petitioner itself on its own cost, if need so arises. 11. With the aforesaid observation/directions, the present petition is allowed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge sourabh P.