1 2025:CGHC:49646 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1119 of 2023 Chain Das S/o Late Chhedu Das Aged About 79 Years R/o Aadarsh Nagar Quarter No. M-1219, Thana-Kusmunda, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Thana Incharge Through Police Station- Kusmunda, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:- “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court that in the interest of justice, the present application of the applicant may kindly be allowed and the order dated KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 13.04.2023 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and an order be passed for releasing the applicant’s vehicle, Scooty bearing registration number C.G. 12 AT 7027, on supurdnama (interim custody) in favour of the applicant.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that a vehicle, Scooty bearing registration number CG-12 AT 7027, owned by the present applicant, was seized by Police Station Kusmunda on 06.09.2018 in connection with Crime No. 270/2018, registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The applicant claims to be the registered owner of the said vehicle and had filed an application before the Collector, Korba seeking release of the same on Supurdnama. The said application was, however, rejected by the learned Collector, Korba vide order dated 13.04.2023 (Annexure A-1). Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the registered owner of the seized vehicle, the vehicle is lying unused in the open premises of the police station and is likely to deteriorate. It is further submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions which may be imposed by this Court. 5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the petition and submits that the vehicle in question was used in the commission of an offence under the NDPS Act and in such matters, release of the vehicle on Supurdnama is not permissible, particularly in view of the stringent provisions of the Act. 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on 3 record with utmost circumspection. 7. In view of the settled position of law, the powers of release of such vehicles seized under the NDPS Act are extremely limited, and unless the applicant demonstrates that the vehicle was not involved in the commission of the offence or that he had no knowledge or involvement in its use for such illegal activity, no case for Supurdnama is made out. 8. In the present case, the applicant has not brought on record any material to show that the vehicle was not used in the alleged offence or that he had exercised due diligence to prevent its misuse. The Collector, Korba has, therefore, rightly rejected the application for Supurdnama. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the Collector, Korba. The order appears to be well-reasoned and based on proper appreciation of the material on record. Hence, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its revisional/supervisory jurisdiction. 10. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. The impugned order dated 13.04.2023 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Collector, is affirmed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal