1 / 5 2025:CGHC:53775 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3304 of 2025 Omprakash @ Pappu S/o Banshilal Sharma Aged About 53 Years (Wrongly Mentioned Banshiralal Sharma in Annexure A-1), R/o Village Roja, Tahsil Aklera, P.S. Bhalta, Distt. Jhalwada, Rajasthan. ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Aamanaka, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. AG (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 04/11/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.149/2025, whereby the learned Court below has rejected the application of the applicant for releasing his vehicle on Supurdnama. 2 / 5 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the offending said vehicle was seized by the police station Aamanaka, Raipur in Crime No. 216/2025 alleging that on 30.06.2025 at about 19.55 O'clock the police has seized the vehicle Car bearing registration No. RJ/17/CA/8552 and Oppo Company Mobile for the commission of offence under Section 15 of N.D.P.S. from the possession of the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 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 22.09.2025 is bad in law, perverse and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and also not sustainable before the eye of law. He further contended that the petitioner is registered owner of alleged vehicle, and he is having a valid and effective documents required for the said vehicle; therefore, he should be entitled for the Supurdnama. 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 and if the same was not released on Supurdnama to the applicant then he will be suffered with irreparable loss. 3 / 5 4. To release the vehicle on Supurdnama, the petitioner has made following prayer : “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and to set aside impugned order dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act) Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Criminal case No. 149/2025 and to release the said vehicle on supurdnama to the applicant, in the interest of justice.” 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 7. 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 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 4 / 5 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.” 8. 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. 9. 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 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. 5 / 5 10. 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 22.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) is hereby set-aside. It is directed that the vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ/17/CA/8552, 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. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Vasant