1 / 5 2025:CGHC:54342 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1350 of 2025 Zameer Khan S/o Abdul Rashid Aged About 53 Years R/o Kumhada Khol Pudukota, Thana-Ratanpur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana -Chowki Belgahna Kota, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Kumar Khatri, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 07/11/2025 1. The instant revision has been filed under Section 438/442 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by challenging the validity of the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, under Mines and Minerals (Development Regulation) Act, 1957/Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in special Case (Mines and Minerals) No.17/2025, while exercising the power of Section 497 of BNSS, the application of the petitioner for handover the vehicle/Mahindra Tractor bearing number VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.11.10 10:58:44 +0530 2 / 5 CG-10-AL-1764 along with trolly on supurdnama has been rejected on the ground of hypothetical presumption. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Mineral Inspector applicant Raju Yadav filed a written report before the Kota Police Station that on the morning of 17/06/2025, during a surprise inspection of Nagoi Ghat in the Arpa River area under village Nagoi by the Naib Tehsildar Belgahna and his team and the staff of the outpost in-charge Belgahna, mineral sand was found in the Arpa River area. During conducting excavation work, the said vehicle was seized. The tractor driver fled, abandoning his tractor. Since no valid documents related to mineral sand excavation were found on the vehicle, the Belgahna outpost seized the tractor under Section 106 of the BNSS and placed it in the custody of the Belgahna police outpost. Based on the applicant's report, crime no. 613/2025 under sections 303(2) BNS, 4(1), 4(1) (A), 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act was registered at the Belgahna police station, Kota, and taken up for investigation. During the investigation, when evidence of crime was found against the accused, they were arrested, and after completing all the formalities of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 14.10.2025 passed by the learned trial court on the basis of hypothetical presumption, whereas there is no possibility of alleged crime has been proved by the police in respect of the petitioner vehicle. The impugned order dated 14.10.2025 is bad in law, perverse and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and also not 3 / 5 sustainable before the eye of law. He further contended that the trial Court has failed to see that the said vehicle is standing in the open area for a long time and the vehicle is getting damaged which is an ultimate loss of the petitioner. The vehicle was not involved in any crime, but still the police has seized the vehicle, therefore, it will be appropriate to release the vehicle on Supurdnama. The trial takes the long time and the interim application for released the vehicle has been rejected by the learned trial court by ignoring the facts as the vehicle was purchased by the petitioner after taken the loan from the Indusind Bank and the said vehicle is a means of livelihood of the petitioner and if the same was not released on supurdnama to the petitioner then he will be suffered with irreparable loss. 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; 4 / 5 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.” 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 5 / 5 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 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 14.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) is hereby set-aside. It is directed that the vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-10-AL-1764 (Tractor with Trolly), 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.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) and equivalent surety be obtained before release of vehicle and the seized item from the petitioner. (iv) He shall file an affidavit giving undertaking that he shall not use aforesaid vehicle for illegal transportation of sand. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Vasant