1 2025:CGHC:42129 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2444 of 2025 Yogesh Koushik S/o Laxmi Prasad Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Bahtarai, Police Station Sakari, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate/ Collector, District Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 2 - Station House Officer Police Station Sakari, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For the petitioner : Mr. Anjay Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 20.08.2025 1. This petition has been filed u/s 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the order dated 21.07.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No.107/2025 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/First A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.08.22 17:56:37 +0530 2 FTSC (POCSO Act), Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh upheld the order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the learned JMFC, Bilaspur in Crime No.392/2025 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama. 2. The offending motorcycle bearing Regn. No. C.G.10/AM-1029 owned by the petitioner was seized by Excise Authorities while transporting 5.400 litres of liquor on 15.06.2025. He filed application before the JMFC, Bilaspur u/s 503 of BNSS, 2023 for releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama which has been rejected on 23.06.2025. Against the said order of JMFC, revision petition was filed which has also been rejected by the Revisional Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the motorcycle and if the vehicle in the present case is kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose, therefore, the orders passed by the revisional Court as also the trial Court cannot be sustained in law and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, he prays for a direction to release the motorcycle on Supurdnama to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the offending vehicle was involved in transporting the illicit liquor and opposes the prayer for releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. The trial Court rejected the Supurdnama application on the basis of report (surrender protest letter) submitted by the Police Station Sakri and the order of JMFC dated 23.06.2025 was under challenge in Regvisional Court. 7. The revisional Court held that in case of seizure of more than 05 bulk litres of liquor, the Collector is empowered to confiscate the offending 3 vehicle under the relevant provisions of the Excise Act and the Supurdnama application can be rejected. It further recorded the fact that as per the case diary, neither the investigation proceedings have been completed nor the charge sheet has been presented in the concerned Court. The revisional Court further held that the offending vehicle is shown to have been seized on 15.06.2025, the Supurdnama application has been submitted by the applicant on 20.06.2025 and according to the provisions of the Excise Act, 2015, there is a provision for the seized narcotic drugs, articles, equipment, contained, materials, conveyances etc., to be liable for confiscation and on the above grounds, the the revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (200) 10 SCC 283 held that it is no use to keep such seized vehicles at Police station for a long period and it is open to the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking a bond and a guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time. 9. Further in a recent reportable decision rendered in Bishwajit Dey versus The state of Assam, Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2025, decided on 07.01.2025, Hon’ble the supreme Court held thus : “34. This Court is also of the view that if the vehicle in the present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This Court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the Vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce. 35. On the contrary, if the vehicle in question is released, it would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able to earn his livelihood), to the bank/financier (who would be repaid the loan disbursed by it) and to the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be available for transportation of goods). 4 Conclusion 36. Consequently, the present Criminal Appeal is allowed with directions to the trial Court to release the vehicle in question in the interim on superdari after preparing a video and still photographs of the vehicle and after obtaining all information/documents necessary for identification of the vehicle, which shall be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the same. Further, the appellant shall not sell or part with the ownership of the Vehicle till conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an undertaking to the trial court that he shall surrender the vehicle within one week of being so directed and/or pay the value of the vehicle (determined according to Income Tax Law on the date of its release), if so ultimately directed by the Court.” 10. Now coming to retaining the vehicle in police custody for a long time, It is matter of common knowledge or experience that as and when the vehicles are seized and kept in police stations, not only do they occupy substantial space in police stations, but upon being kept in open are also prone to fast natural decay on account of whether conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle looses its road worthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than two weeks. That apart, it is also matter of common knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicle get junked so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road. Therefore, no purpose will be served to keep the vehicle in police custody for a long time as it will turn junk and also occupy the substantial place of police station. Hence, the rejection of application for interim custody cannot be allowed to sustain. 11. In view of the above discussion and following the case law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases Sunderbhai Desai (Supra) and Bishwajit Dey (Supra), I am inclined to direct that the custody of the seized motorcycle bearing Regn.No. C.G.10/AM-1029 be handed over to the petitioner by way of interim measures. 5 12. In the result, the orders of the revisional Court and the trial Court are set aside and the petition is allowed. It is directed that till the disposal of criminal case, the interim custody of Motorcycle No. C.G.10/AM-1029 be handed over to the petitioner subject to proper conditions to be imposed by the trial Court. 13. There will be no adverse effect on confiscation proceeding of the property. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao