IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.568 of 2025 Jagannath Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. K.K. Rath, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Swain, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 01.09.2025 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Instant revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 20th August, 2025 passed in connection with Crl. Misc. Case No.173 of 2025 as at Annexure-3 by the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road, Jajpur, whereby, an application under Section 503 BNSS seeking interim release and custody of a seizure vehicle bearing Registration No. OD 01 AY 6556 in his favour was declined. 3. It is submitted to the Court that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and not an accused, hence, therefore, learned Court below should have allowed interim release and custody of the same while dealing with an application under Section 503 BNSS but it has led to the passing of the impugned order at Annexure-3. Page 2 of 3 4. Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, submits that as the investigation is in progress, rightly, therefore, the learned Court below considered it not proper to release the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner. 5. Perused the F.I.R. as at Annexure-1. 6. A case under Section 281 and 106(1) BNS have been registered. The claim of the petitioner is that the seizure vehicle is lying in the custody of the local P.S. exposed to sun and rain and hence, certainly to be damaged and therefore, soon it should be released in his favour with conditions. Though, the learned Court below has taken judicial notice of the Apex Court’s decision in the case of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai Vrs. State of Gujarat (2003) 24 OCR 444 but has reached at a conclusion that the seizure vehicle should not be released. No specific reason is assigned and the need for the detention of the seizure vehicle. Law is well settled that unless and until, the article seized is required to be detained for any specific purpose during and in course of investigation, it should be released in favour of the rightful claimant and the said aspect has been completely lost sight of by the learned Court below while disposing of the application under Section 503 BNS moved by the petitioner. Having said that, the Court, in absence of any reason to detain the vehicle further and as it is likely to be exposed to the vagaries of the climatic conditions and being alive to the settled position of law and decision of the Apex Court in Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai (supra), is of the view that the same should immediately be released in favour of the petitioner subject to proof of ownership and by imposing suitable conditions as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 20th August, 2025 at Annexure-3 in Crl. Misc. Case No.173 of 2025 is hereby set aside with a direction to learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road, Jajpur to forthwith release the seizure vehicle bearing Registration No. OD 01 AY 6556 in favour of the petitioner in connection with C.T. Case No.1115 of 2025 upon receiving proof of ownership in respect thereof and by imposing such conditions as necessary and expedient. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram Designation: Personal Assistant