1 / 5 2025:CGHC:4514 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2999 of 2024 Satish S/o Kalicharan Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Mirjapur, Ujhani, Badaun Distt., Uttar Pradesh. ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station - Nagarnaar, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 24/01/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner against the order dated 18.09.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed in Crime No.39/2024 by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bastar Jagdalpur (CG), whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/owner for taking 2 / 5 custody of the vehicle Chhota Hathi bearing registration No.UP-24-AT- 7816, this petition is being filed on the following facts and grounds. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the actual owner of the vehicle Chhota Hathi bearing Registration No.- UP/24/ AT/7816 engine no. 700CCD104HWXSA3235 Chassis no.- MAT559033PVH43249 Tata motors Titanium WH in Colour, which was seized by the concerned police officer P.S.-, Nagarnar, Bastar Place Jagdalpur Dist Bastar (C.G.) while investigating the matter. At the time of incident, said vehicle was driven by the Irshad. The petitioner/actual owner of the vehicle moved application under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure, before the learned Special Judge NDPS Act. Jagdalpur, Dist- Bastar (C.G.) for taking custody (Supurdnama) of the seized vehicle. While deciding the matter, the learned Court below observed that the said vehicle has been used for the purpose of transportation of illegal things and the same is punishable under the NDPS Act and the vehicle is direct involved in said crime, further the learned Court below found that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle, but investigation is still going on regarding the involvement of the petitioner/owner, therefore not found fit to release the vehicle in custody and passed the order dated 18.09.2024 (Annexure P/1) dismissed the application moved by the petitioner/owner. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dated 18.09.20204 (Annexure P-1) is purely illegal, improper and incorrect and therefore, liable to be set-aside and not sustainable according to the law. The petitioner is the actual owner of the vehicle in question. He further 3 / 5 contended that the petitioner who is registered owner of the vehicle, and is financed with TATA BIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd, is paying Rs.25,594/- per month as installment and on account of not having possession of the vehicle the applicant is facing various difficulties and financial problems. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition by quash the impugned order 18.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) and may kindly pass the order to give the custody/Supurdnama of the seized vehicle, in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. 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 4 / 5 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.” 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 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 vehicles can be released to the petitioner, who is claiming himself to be the owner of the vehicle. It is also pertinent to mention here that in 5 / 5 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 18.09.2024 passed by the Court below is hereby set-aside. It is directed that the vehicle Chhota Hathi bearing Registration No.- UP/24/ AT/7816 engine no. 700CCD104HWXSA3235 Chassis no.- MAT559033PVH43249 Tata motors Titanium WH in Colour, therefore, the vehicle be released in favour of the petitioner, 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.4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs) and equivalent surety be obtained before release of vehicle and the seized item from the petitioner. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Vasant VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR