1 2025:CGHC:28675 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 613 of 2025 Maksood Alam @ Mister S/o Mahmood Alam Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Masjid Mohalla, Kunkuri, Tahsil - Kunkuri, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station - Kunkuri, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate For State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. The applicant has been preferred this instant case under Section 438 R/w Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS) Act, Jashpur (C.G.) whereby the learned Judge had rejected the application filed by the applicant for interim custody of seized vehicle and mobile phone. SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.06.30 14:33:52 +0530 2 2. The case in nutshell is that, the applicant/custodian, Maksud Alam, on 13.12.2024 at 9:15 PM, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kunkuri, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), was found sitting on an unregistered motorcycle (Bajaj Platina) bearing registration No. CG-14-ML-8989, bearing Chassis No. MD2A76AY3JWG36236, near Punjab National Bank on National Highway No. 43, in possession of 51 strips of intoxicating capsules illegally, without any valid license or authorization, kept in a yellow plastic bag in his hand. Based on the memorandum statement of the applicant/accused/custodian, the said intoxicating capsules, the motorcycle used in the offense, and the Vivo company mobile phone belonging to the applicant/custodian were seized from him on 13.12.2024 and offence has been registered against the accused. The applicant is the owner of the said vehicle and he filed an application under Section 497 of BNSS before the learned trial Court for taking Supurdnama of the said vehicle and mobile phone but the said application was rejected by the learned trial Court. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the applicant is the registered owner of the seized vehicle and mobile phone, and he is having a valid and effective documents required for the said articles, therefore, he is entitled for the Supurdnama. He next submits that from the possession of the applicant only 20.35 Gram of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus (Tramadol) has been seized which is less than the commercial quantity. He further 3 submits that the seized vehicle and mobile are kept for a long time idle in the police station, there are danger of it being damaged by vagaries of weather and no useful purpose would be served by detaining the vehicle and mobile in the police station till the trial is concluded, therefore, it is prayed that the seized motorcycle and mobile phone may be released on Supurdnama. He further submits that the applicant has been granted benefit of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 07.03.2025 passed in MCRC No. 1324/2025. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the Applicant and supported the impugned order. 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; 4 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 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, 5 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 that there has no objection to the ownership of the applicant 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 and mobile are allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the said vehicle and mobile can be released to the applicant, who is claiming himself to be the owner of the articles, so that he can use it and the said vehicle and mobile 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 revision is allowed and the order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge 6 (NDPS) Act, Jashpur (C.G.) in Crime No. 176/2024 is hereby set aside. 10. In view of the above, it is directed that the said vehicle and mobile phone immediately be released in favour of the Applicant as an interim custody on the following condition that the Applicant would furnish a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- 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 articles. It is also pertinent that the said vehicle shall be submitted by the Applicant itself on its own cost, if need so arises. 11. With the aforesaid observation/directions, the present revision is allowed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham