1 2025:CGHC:51803 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2411 of 2025 1 - Surendra Kumar Kurrey S/o Sudarshan Kurrey Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Turkadih, Tahsil Kota, And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur, C.G. --- Respondent(s) CRMP No. 2413 of 2025 1 - Vijay Baghel S/o Baliram Baghel Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Turkadih, Tahsil Kota, And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Goswami, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A. G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 16/10/2025 1. Both these petitions are arising out of the same crime number and same transaction, therefore, they are being heard and decided together. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.10.17 19:25:26 +0530 2 2. The CRMP No. 2411 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner (Surendra Kumar Kurrey) under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur in M.J.C. Criminal No. 44/2025, whereby the application for grant of interim custody of the tractor bearing Registration No. CG10AV9417 has been rejected. 3. The CRMP No. 2413 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner (Vijay Baghel) against the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957/Sessions Judge Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur in M.J.C. Criminal No. 42/2025, whereby the trolley of the tractor bearing Registration No. CG10BU2339, whereby interim custody of the trolly of the tractor has been rejected. 4. The subject matter, in brief, the respective petitioners are the owners of the respective tractor, engine and tractor trolley. On 16.06.2025, on being patrolling, these tractor and trolley, which was carrying sand have been seized by the patrolling party on the allegation that they carrying sand without paying the royalty and it was being transported illegally. The said tractor and trolley has been seized. Offence of Crime No. 684 of 2025 has been registered at Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur for the offence under Rule 71 of CG Mines and Minerals Rules, 2015/Section 4(1), 4(1)(A) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 and Section 303(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Special Court. 3 5. The respective petitioners have filed their application for grant of interim custody of the said vehicles claiming that they being the owner of the said vehicles and by keeping it in stationary condition, it would decay and would be destroyed, therefore, the subject vehicles may be given them in interim custody during the pendency of the criminal case. 6. After hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge Judge Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) 1957, rejected the applications filed by the respective petitioners by the impugned orders which are under challenge in the present petition. 7. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners would submit that the driver of the said tractor and trolley were carrying sand on the instruction of the contractor. However, on the way they have been apprehended by the police and seized. The petitioners were not in knowledge of the fact that vehicle was carrying sand illegally. Their vehicles have been seized and detained and 16.06.2025 by which they are suffering financially. He would further submits that the petitioners had paid amount of fine of Rs. 16,080/- to the Respondent/State on 30.06.2025. No purpose would be served if the vehicles were lying in the stationary condition in the police custody and its condition are deteriorating day by day by keeping it in upon place, and ultimately it would be destroyed which would cause a national loss. They 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 vehicles during the pendency of the criminal case. 4 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/State supported the impugned order and opposed the claim of the petitioners and would submit that the subject vehicles were involved in illegal activities of carrying sand and looking to the present scenario and increasing such type of activities of illegal mining of sand and its transportation, their vehicles should be kept in stationary condition and they are not entitled for grant of interim custody. He would further submits that their vehicles are liable to be confiscated and thus there is no merit in the petition and the same liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 10. Section 497 of Bharatiya Nagarik 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:- “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; 5 (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. 11. 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 6 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. 12. Similarly, in the matter of “Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai v. State of Gujrat and another” (2013) 3 SCC 240, the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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. 13. Applying the aforesaid principles to the case in hand, the order impugned rejecting the application filed by respective owners of the vehicles for interim custody cannot be held sustainable, therefore, the same is accordingly set-aside. 14. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and following the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that 7 the petitioners are the registered owners of the respective vehicles and it is of no use to keep the seized vehicles at the police station for a long time, it is directed that the vehicles shall be released to the respective petitioners (owners) on the following conditions:- (i) The petitioners shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakhs) with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Bilaspur. (ii) The petitioners must satisfy the Court that they are the registered owners of the respective offending vehicles and the vehicles are having all requisite documents including live insurance certificates. (iii) The petitioners shall not transfer or dispose of the offending vehicles 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 offending vehicles shall be furnished by the petitioners before the trial Court with an undertaking that no damage shall be caused or no part of the vehicles be substituted. (iv) The petitioners shall also file an undertaking before the trial Court that the offending vehicles shall not be used for commission of offence; and before giving interim custody of the offending vehicles to the petitioners, three coloured photographs of cabinet size from different angels clearly indicating registration number and other particulars of the vehicles shall be kept on file. The expenses for the photographs shall be borne by the petitioners. (v) The petitioners shall produce vehicle either before this Court or before the Collector or such authorities as it may be directed, on their own expenses. (vi) The subject vehicles shall not be involved in similar nature of offence in future. 15. Accordingly, the present criminal revisions are allowed and the impugned orders are hereby set aside. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok