1 2025:CGHC:34202 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2140 of 2022 Stanislas Toppo S/o Chhendu Toppo Tirkey Aged About 24 Years R/o Heeranagar (Khora), Police Station - Gumla, District - Gumla (Jharkhand) And Permanent Address - Roshan Nagar, Karamtoli, Gumla, District : Gumla, Jharkhand ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station – City Kotwali, Jashpur, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Oswald Vibhu Xalxo S/o Late Karlus Xalxo Aged About 43 Years Resident Of Village Farsabahar, Jhagarpur, Police Station Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 18.07.2025 1. The present petition under Section 482 of CrPC been filed against the order dated 24.11.2022 passed by learned Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.07.21 18:01:27 +0530 2 Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.11/2022 whereby the Revisional Court has directed to release the seized vehicle i.e. Innova bearing registration No. JH-01-EA-3870 with conditions in favour of the petitioner. 2. The above vehicle was seized from the petitioner Stanislas Toppo by the Police on 02.03.2022 in connection with Crime No.69/2022 registered at Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur for the offence under Sections 420 & 120B of IPC. An application was moved by the present petitioner for releasing the seized vehicle on Supurdnama which was rejected by the CJM, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur vide order dated 20.10.2022. Against the said order of the trial Court, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Jashpur which was allowed vide impugned order dated 24.11.2022 with condition No.1 that the petitioner would return the money taken from the complainants and thereafter on furnishing a sum of Rs.15,00,000 as Supurdnama, the seized vehicle along with documents and key would be released to the petitioner. It is this condition No.1 of the impugned order which has been challenged in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle and he 3 has valid and effective documents required for the said vehicle to be released on Supurdnama. He further submits that the Revisional Court while allowing the revision has erred in imposing condition No.1 in respect of refund of the cheated amount to the complainants. He further submits that the seized vehicle is kept for a long time idle in the Police Station, there is danger of it being damaged by vagaries of weather and no useful purpose would be served by detaining the vehicle in the police station till the trial is concluded, therefore, it is prayed that the seized vehicle may be released on Supurdnama. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle. He is an accused in this case for the offence under Sections 420 & 120B of IPC and now he is on bail. The vehicle was seized from the petitioner. The petitioner had taken Rs. 9 lakh from the complainants in the name of providing car and house. The trial Court rejected the Supurdnama application of the petitioner 4 against which the petitioner preferred a revision. The Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 24.11.2022 directed to release the seized vehicle with condition that the petitioner would return the money taken from the complainants and thereafter furnish a sum of Rs.15,00,000 as Supurdnama, with an objective of protecting the interests of the complainants. 7. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that if the petitioner deposits Rs.5,00,000/- in cash in the concerned Trial Court, the seized vehicle in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner as an interim custody imposing proper conditions. The said mount would be distributed among the complaints by the Trial Court, in proportion to the amount defrauded, with appropriate conditions. 8. With the aforesaid direction/observations, the present petition stands partly allowed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai