1 2025:CGHC:7858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 301 of 2025 1 - Suresh Kumar Sahu S/o Dauram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o H. No. 75, Laripara, Block Kota P.S. Kota, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 13/02/2025 1. Petitioner has filled this CRMP under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the order dated 11/09/2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 144/2024 for supurdnama of vehicle bearing registration number CG 10 BJ 9265. 2. As per the contents of the impugned order one vehicle Pick-up bearing registration number CG 10 BJ 9265 was seized vide Crime No. 236/2024 of Police Station, Takhatpur in connection with offence under NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.03.12 10:22:01 +0530 2 Sections 4,6,10 of C.G. Krishak Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam and section 11 d of Animal Cruelty Act. Petitioner filed an application for Supurdnama of vehicle before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, which was heard on 15/04/2024 and rejected. This order was challenged in the revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was also rejected. Hence this petition. 3. The grounds in this petition are that the Police has not completed the trial of the offence within the prescribed period as such the vehicle has been detained illegally by the police station, petitioner is permanent resident of address mentioned in the petition, petitioner is registered owner of the seized vehicle and he is not involved in the alleged crime, petitioner intends to comply with all the conditions imposed for releasing of the seized vehicle, charge-sheet has not been filed, on these grounds it is prayed that the orders passed by the Courts below be set-aside and relief be given to the petitioner. 4. Counsel for the State has opposed the ground in this petition and submits that proceeding for confiscation of the vehicle concerned has been initiated by the Police. 5. 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; 3 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 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.” 6. 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. 7. In the instant case, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner, who is claiming himself to 4 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. 8. In the result, order dated 11/09/2024 is quashed and the petition is partly allowed. The un-ladden pick-up bearing No. C.G.10 BJ 9265 is directed to be released on the following conditions :- (i) Before release of vehicle, proper panchnama be prepared. (ii) Photographs of vehicle should be taken and bond should also be produced that the article would be produced if required at the time of trial. (iii) Proper security and personal bond of the owner, amounting to present value of like vehicle, be obtained before release of the vehicle. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Kamde