1 2025:CGHC:647 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3416 of 2024 1 - Arvind S/o Prem Sagar Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Jilda Police Chowki Podi Bachra Thana Baikunthpur District - Koriya (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District - Magistrate Baikunthpur District - Koriya (C.G.) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Chowki Incharge Podi Bachra Thana Baikunthpur District - Koriya (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. S.K. Kushwaha, Advocate For State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 06/01/2025 1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant assailing the order dated 04/11/2024 passed by the Learned Upper Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, C.G. in Criminal Revision No. 44/2024 whereby the order dated 19/09/2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, C.G. in criminal case No.826 of 2024 rejecting the application for supurdnama filed by the applicant, has been affirmed. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.01.08 17:11:25 +0530 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that, in the FIR No. 03/2024 registered by the police of Police Station Baikunthpur, under Section 15 of the C.G. Kolahal Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1985 on the basis of a complaint received on 06/09/2024, a pick-up vehicle no. CG 29 AC-2293 owned by the applicant, containing 08 pieces of bass box, 06 pieces of top box, 05 pieces of amplifier, 01 piece of mixer, 01 piece of generator, 01 laptop, 12 pieces of highs and 08 pieces of war light were seized on 30/09/2023 and kept at police station Patna and the charge sheet related to the said complaint was presented before the trial court, in which the next hearing date was fixed as 04/12/2024. The applicant filed an application under section 497 of the IPC before the trial court on 19/09/2024 for handing over the above seized material owned by him till the trial of the case and the same has been cancelled and the said cancellation order was also challenged in the revision, the revision has also been dismissed. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has enclosed sufficient documents along with the application of Supurdnama to establish his ownership of the seized items. He would next contend that the proceedings before the Magistrate will take a long time and there is likelihood of damage caused to the equipment/machinery in absence of proper care and maintenance. He would next contend that the applicant had purchased the seized vehicle on loan and if the seized vehicle is not returned to the applicant, it will cause irreparable financial loss to him and he will not be able to pay the loan amount. He would next contend that the stand of the Court below for refusing to handover the seized articles 3 that the seized articles were earlier seized in an incident on 30/09/2023 whereas the said seizure was totally different. He lastly contended that the electronic equipments are not a piece of evidence which can be tampered by the Applicant and can create a trouble for the purposes of the adjudication of the case. If the devices will be kept in the custody of the Respondents it will get damaged due to which the Applicant will suffer hardship as the devices are very costly. It is of no use to keep such seized devices at the police station for long period as there is no such instance which is likely to take place if the articles are released from the custody of the respondents. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the applicant. 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 4 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.” 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 applicant that no useful purpose would be served if the articles is allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the articles 5 can be released to the applicant, who is claiming himself to be the owner of the article. It is also pertinent to mention here that in this case , it is found that the articles are left for natural decay for a long period of time and no substantive action has been taken and the articles are still left for irreparable damages. 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 04/11/2024 & 19/09/2024 passed by the Court below are hereby set-aside. It is directed that the pick-up vehicle no. CG 29 AC-2293 along with the article immediately be released in favour of the applicant as interim custody on the following condition that the applicant would furnish a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as supurdnama in the concerned Trial Court, keeping in view that there must not be any alteration in the physical appearance of the vehicle and article. It is also pertinent that the aforesaid vehicle and article shall be submitted by the applicant itself on his own cost, if need so arises. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present petition is allowed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge ashu