1 2025:CGHC:60009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3737 of 2025 Sushil Kumar Sarthi S/o Thadaram Sarthi Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Kodasiya, Farsakani, Police Station And Tehsil- Lailunga, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Station House Officer Police Station. Lailunga, District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 10/12/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally at motion stage. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions 2 Judge, Gharghoda, District- Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Revision 16/2025 whereby the learned court has rejected the application of the applicant for grant of Supurdnama of his vehicle Maruti Suzuki Ertiga bearing registration no. CG 13 BB 1215. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 07.05.2025, Police of Police Station Lailunga received information that in the jungle near Village Mohanpur Chowk Main Road, a bull was being brutally slaughtered, its meat was being cut and packed into sacks, and the same was being loaded into a white Ertiga car bearing registration No. CG- 13-BB-1215. Acting on the said information, the police reached the spot and found the petitioner Sushil Sarathi and co-accused Chandu Sarathi slaughtering a bull, cutting the meat, and loading four sacks of meat into the said vehicle. The vehicle and sacks of meat were seized, and FIR No. 120/2025 was registered at Police Station Lailunga for offences under Sections 325, 3(5) IPC and Sections 4, 6, 10, and 11 of Chhattisgarh Krishak Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam, 2004. That, in the aforesaid crime, the vehicle in question, i.e., Maruti Suzuki Ertiga bearing registration No. CG-13-BB-1215, which stands registered in the name of the petitioner, was seized by the police on 08.05.2025. Copy of the Registration Certificate and insurance Cover letter along with the Adhar Card and driving licence of the petitioner herein is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-2 (Colly). On 15.05.2025, the petitioner moved an application for release of the seized vehicle before the learned Judicial 3 Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda, District Raigarh, in MJC Criminal Case No. 2081/2025. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 20.05.2025, dismissed the application on the ground that under Section 6(3) of the Chhattisgarh Krishak Pashu Parirakshan(Amendment) Act, 2011, a seized vehicle cannot be released before expiry of six months or conclusion of trial. Copy of the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda, District Raigarh, in MJC Criminal Case No. 2081/2025 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-3. Aggrieved by the said order dated 20.05.2025, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 16/2025 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh. However, vide order dated 12.08.2025, the learned Revisional Court dismissed the revision, reiterating the statutory bar contained under Section 6(3) of the Chhattisgarh Krishak Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam, 2004. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that trial Court has committed an error by rejecting the application of applicant seeking the vehicle in question on supurdnama as he is the registered owner of vehicle. He further submits that the seized vehicle is lying idle at Police Station and if the same is not allowed to be used for a longer time, it is likely to rot or rust and no useful purpose is going to be served in keeping the vehicle idle with the police; rather if the applicant is permitted to use the seized vehicle 4 it would be in running condition. He would further submits that a period of 6 months have alredy been elapsed form the date of seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle, therefore, he prays for the release of the said seized vehicle on Supurdnama in favour of the applicant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the applicant. 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 in detail; 4. this jurisdiction of the court to record 5 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. 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 also considering the facts of the case, submissions made by counsel for parties, the fact that the applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and also the period of 6 months have been elapse from the date of seizure of vehicle, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served to keep the seized vehicle in the police custody and it would be appropriate to release the seized vehicle on Supurdnama in favour of the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District- Raigarh (C.G.) is hereby set aside. The seized vehicle is directed to be released on Supurdnama in favour of the applicant 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 vehicle be made. 6 (ii) Photographs of the vehicle should be taken and bond should also be produced that the vehicle would be produced as and when required. (iii) Proper security i.e. personal bond of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Seven Lakhs rupees) and equivalent surety be obtained before release of vehicle. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima