1 / 4 2025:CGHC:1134 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2739 of 2023 1 - Vikas Jaiswal S/o Munna Jaiswal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Jevra Sirsa, Ward No. 19 Near Lord Hanuman Temple Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Bajpai, Advocate For State : Mr. Karan Bahrani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 08/01/2025 1. This petition is filed by petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by learned Second Additional Session Judge, Durg (C.G) in Criminal Revision No.279/2023 affirming the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Durg, C.G. in MJC Cri. No.674/2023 rejecting the application of petitioner filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking the vehicle ‘Two Wheeler bearing registration No.C.G. 07-AX-1091’ on ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.01.18 12:26:44 +0530 2 / 4 supurdnama which was seized on 21/07/2023 by the Police of police station -Kasdol, Distt -Balodabazar, C.G. in connection with Crime No.224/2023 for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 186, 363 of IPC and later on Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 34 (2) of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have committed an error by rejecting the application of petitioner seeking the vehicle in question on supurdnama as he is the registered owner of vehicle. With the passage of time, condition of the vehicle would deteriorate and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in police custody. Hence, he prayed that said vehicle be handed over to the petitioner on Supurdnama on the terms and conditions as may be deemed fit by this Court. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 and judgment/order dated 10.03.2021 passed by this Court in CRA No.234/2021 (Narayan Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh). 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would support the impugned orders. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record with utmost circumspection as also gone through the judgment/order referred as above. 3 / 4 5. The Supreme Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), has laid down the guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by the police. Relevant para reads as under:- “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 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 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. 4 / 4 7. Considering facts of the case, submissions made by counsel for the parties, the fact that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, further considering the law laid down by hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred decisions, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served to keep the seized vehicle in the police custody and it would be appropriate to release the seized vehicle i.e. ‘Two Wheeler bearing registration No.C.G. 07-AX-1091’on Supurdnama in favour of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 26/09/2023 passed by the trial Magistrate and affirmed by order dated 21/08/2023 by the Revisional Court are hereby set aside. The seized vehicle is directed to be released on Supurdnama in favour of the petitioner 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 vehicle be made. (ii) Photographs of the vehicle should be taken and bond should also be produced that the vehicle would be produced as and when required. (iii) Proper security i.e. personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) and equivalent surety be obtained before release of vehicle. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu