1 2025:CGHC:52083 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 979 of 2025 1 - Ravi Kathale S/o Heera Lal Kathale, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village And Post Risda, Ps And Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Mineral Branch In-Charge, Office Mining Branch Collector Office, Bilaspur, Ps Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Sho, Ps Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 17/10/2025 1. The present criminal revision filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the impugned order dated 24.07.2025, passed by learned Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Bilaspur, in MJC (Criminal) No. 35 of 2025, whereby the application under Section 503 of BNSS, 2023 read with Section 21(4)(A) of Mines and Minerals VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.18 14:53:36 +0530 2 (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, for grant of interim custody of Hyva Truck bearing registration No. CG 10 BW 5665 has been rejected. 2. The subject matter in brief in the case is that, the petitioner is owner of the seized Hyva Truck bearing No. CG 10 BW 5665. On 12.06.2025, on being patrolling, the said Hyva Truck, which was carrying sand, has been seized by the patrolling party on the allegation that it was carrying sand without paying any royalty and it was being transported illegally. The said Hyva Truck has been seized and it is kept in police custody at Chakarbhata police station, District Bilaspur. 3. The petitioner has filed his application for grant of interim custody of the said vehicle claiming that he being the owner of the said vehicle and by keeping in stationary condition of the said vehicle at police station, it would decay and would be destroyed, therefore, the subject vehicle may be given him in interim custody during pendency of the criminal case. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 rejected the application filed by the petitioner by the impugned order, which is under challenge in the present criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has engaged the driver for plying the vehicle, but he was not in knowledge of the fact that he was carrying sand illegally. His vehicle has been detained since 12.06.2025, by which he is suffering financially, as the vehicle 3 are in hypothecation and he has to pay the huge amount of the fixed installments to the finance company. No purpose would be served, if the vehicle is lying in stationary condition in the police custody and its condition is deteriorating day by day by keeping it in an open place, and ultimately it would be destroyed, which would cause a national loss. He would rely upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat” (2002) 10 SCC 283 and prayed for interim custody of the aforesaid vehicle during the pendency of the criminal case. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned order and opposed the claim of the petitioner and would submit that the subject vehicle was involved in illegal activities of carrying sand and looking to the present scenario and increasing the such type of activities of illegal mining of sand and its transportation, his vehicle should be kept in stationary condition, and he is not entitled for grant of interim custody. He would further submit that his vehicle is liable to be confiscated, and thus, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 8. Section 497 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) provides order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases, which reads as under:- 4 “497. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. — (1) When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit Crr 780 of 2024 for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "property" includes - (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody; (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence. (2) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of fourteen days from the production of the property referred to in sub-section (1) before it, prepare a statement of such property containing its description in such form and manner as the State Government may, by rules, provide. (3) The Court or the Magistrate shall cause to be taken the photograph and if necessary, videograph on mobile phone or any electronic media, of the property referred to in sub-section (1). (4) The statement prepared under sub-section (2) and the photograph or the videography taken under sub-section (3) shall be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Sanhita. (5) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of thirty days after the statement has been prepared under sub-section (2) and the photograph or the videography has been taken under sub-section (3), order the disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery of the property in the manner specified hereinafter. 5 9. In the matter of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai” (supra), it has been held that:- 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 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. 21. However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly. 10. Similarly, in the matter of “Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai v. State of Gujrat and another” (2013) 3 SCC 240, the Hon’ble Supreme Court 6 has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the Police Station in an open condition, which is prone to natural decay on account of weather conditions for a long period. 11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the case in hand, the order impugned rejecting the application filed by the owner of the vehicle for interim custody cannot be held sustainable, therefore, the same is accordingly set-aside. 12. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and following the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the petitioner is the registered owner of the aforesaid Hyva Truck vehicle bearing registration No. CG 10 BW 5665 and it is of no use to keep the seized vehicle at the police station for a long time, it is directed that the said vehicle along with keys of the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner (owner) in interim custody on the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Fifty lakhs) with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Bilaspur. (ii) The petitioner must satisfy the Court that he is the registered owner of the said vehicle and the vehicle is having all requisite documents including live insurance certificate. (iii) The petitioner shall not transfer or dispose of the said vehicle to any one else and shall not make any change in its body, colour or engine. It is needless to say that make, colour, chassis number, and engine number of the said vehicle shall be furnished by the petitioner before the trial Court with an undertaking that no damage shall be caused or no part of the vehicle be substituted. (iv) The petitioner shall also file an undertaking before 7 the trial Court that the said vehicle shall not be used for commission of offence; and before giving interim custody of the said vehicle to the petitioner, three coloured photographs of cabinet size from different angels clearly indicating registration number and other particulars of the vehicle shall be kept in file. The expenses for the photographs shall be borne by the petitioner. (v) The petitioner shall produce said vehicle either before this Court or before the Collector or such authorities as it may be directed, on his own expenses. (vi) The subject vehicle shall not be involved in similar nature of offence in future. 13. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved