1 2025:CGHC:54153 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3151 of 2025 1 - Bhagirathi Jangde S/o Rambharos Jangde Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Manpahri Pali, Police Station Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Kota District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Raveena Soni and Shri Lalit Jangde, Advocates For Respondent/State : Shri Ajit Singh, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 06/11/2025 By way of the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957/Sessions Judge, District Bilaspur, whereby the SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.11.07 18:07:48 +0530 2 application filed by the applicant under Section 503 of the BNSS for release of the seized vehicle namely Mahindra Tractor bearing registration NO. CG-10-BD-6065, along with Trolley was dismissed. 2. Brief facts as narrated, are that on 16.06.2025, during a sudden inspection conducted by the complainant along with Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Naib Tahsildar and Station House Officer, Police Station Kota at Podi Bank of River Arpa, one Mahindra Tractor with Trolley was found transporting sand illegally from the river bed. The driver fled from the spot and no document regarding mining permission was found. Consequently, the said vehicle was seized under Section 106 of BNSS and Crime No. 608/2025 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 3(5) of BNSS and Sections 4(1), 4(1A) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the competent court. The applicant moved an application under Section 503 of the BNSS for interim custody of the said vehicle, which came to be rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 21.08.2025. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the tractor and trolley are lying in the open and are likely to deteriorate in condition. Learned trial court rejected the application of the petitioner for supurdnama on the ground that the seized property is subject to the conclusion and decision of the trial. It is further submitted that the applicant is the registered 3 owner of the vehicle and undertakes to produce the same as and when directed by the trial Court. He submits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle exposed to extreme weather conditions within the police premises, where it bound to deteriorate and lose its functional value. The petitioner, being the registered owner of the said vehicle, has already produced the relevant documents, including the registration certificate and insurance papers. It is further submitted that the vehicle is an essential tool of livelihood for the petitioner and if left unattended, will suffer irreparable damage and become junk in due course. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner but has not disputed the factual position that the vehicle has been lying seized since June 2025, subject ot the vargaries of nature and that its ownership can be verified through the registration certificate and relevant documents. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 7. This Court finds considerable force in the submissin made on behalf of the petitioner. It is a settled principleof law as laid down by the Apex Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 has laid down the guiding principles for releasing the vehicle by the police, to prevent their deterioration, stating that the vehicles or stricles siezed during investigation should not be permitted to decay in open prermises, as 4 their continued detention serves no frutful purpose and only results in loss of value. The object of seizure is to ensure production ofproperty during trial not to cause its destruction by inaction. 8. It is further observed that the vehicle has remained in custody for several months without any material progress in the case. Its prolonged exposure to sun and rain will render it unserviceable, which is neither in the interest of justice nor in conformity with the spirit of thedirections laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. For ready reference, the relevant portion is reproduced below: “7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. 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 the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, 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 the properly in detail; and 4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering 5 with the articles. 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations 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. ” 9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai (supra), and the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957/Sessions Judge, District Bilaspur in MJC (Crl.) No. 50/2025 is hereby set aside. The seized vehicle ie. Mahindra Tractor bearing registration No. CG-10-BD-6065 along with Trolley shall be released in favor of the petitioner on Supurdnama, according to the specification mentioned in the seizure memo, subject to the following conditions: i. Before release of vehicle proper panchnama be prepared. Photographs of vehicle should be taken and bond should also be produced that the article would be produced if required at the time of trial. ii) Proper security i.e. supurdnama to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lacs) and like 6 sum of surety be obtained before release of vehicle. iii) the petitioner shall file an affidavit before the trial court declaring himself to be registered owner of the vehicle and undertaking not to alienate transfer, or alter its condition during pendency of the proceedings. iv. The petitioner shall produce the original Registration Certificate (RC Book), insurance documents and any other relevant ownership papers before the trial court for due verification. v. In the event of any misuse of the vehicle or involvement in similar illegal activity, this order shall stand automatically revoked, and the vehicle shall be liable for immediate re-seizure by the authorities concerned. 10. The trial court shall ensure due compliance of the above conditions before releasing the vehicle. With these observations, the petition stands allowed on the aforesaid conditions. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge