1 / 7 2025:CGHC:58331 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3647 of 2025 Sunny Yadav S/o Gowardhan Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Rajak Mohalla, Mangla P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Puriya, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 02/12/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner against the order dated 20.11.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed in MJC Cri. No.78/2025 by the Special Judge under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957/Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG), whereby the application under Section 503 of BNSS, 2023 for Supurdnama to Tractor 2 / 7 bearing registration No.CG-10-BX-6559 Engine No.BZNL1541527SM to the applicant was rejected. Hence, this petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Mineral inspector Complainant/ Raju Yadav file a written complaint in police station civil line that on dated 15.10.2025, during a surprise inspection in the Mangla Path Baba area by the District Mineral Staff Bilaspur, the tractor- trolley sold Sonalika was found transporting sand without valid documents and was weized and kept in the custody of Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur, as per the statement of the driver Pakun Sahu in the said case the sand was found to be transported illegally. Transporting minerals without a transit pass constitutes Bilaspur mineral theft and is punishable offence under Section 303(2) 3, 5 of BNS 2023 and Rule 71 of Chhattisgarh Miner Mineral Rules, 2015, and section 4(1a), 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. The applicant preferred an application under Section 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the learned Trial Court i.e. learned Special Judge under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957/Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) praying inter-alia that he is registered owner of the trolley and facing great hardship of livelihood after its seizure. It was further prayed that the applicant uses his tractor and trolley on agricultural work which is only source of income for livelihood of his family and it was stated in the application that the machinery vehicle is standing in an open place in police station and it was further stated that there were no illegal 3 / 7 transportation was being conducted by the vehicle but the sand was transported from the godown of building material supplier to the purchaser. 4. The application was taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court i.e. learned Special Judge under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 and the same was dismissed considering the fact that now a days, the illegal excavation of sand is increasing day by day and the present applicant failed to produce legal documents regarding transportation of sand, therefore, the applicant prefers the instant application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dated 20.11.2025 (Annexure A-1) is illegal, improper and incorrect and therefore, liable to be set-aside and not sustainable according to the law. The present applicant is registered owner of the Tractor bearing registration No.CG-10-BX-6559 Engine No.BZNL1541527SM and the same being used for his agricultural and other transportation work and the same is sole source of income for his livelihood. The present applicant is entitled to get his trolley on Supurdnama (Interim custody), in the light of the various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court particularly in light of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Special Leave Petition (Cri) No. 2745/2002 captioned as Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the articles are not kept for a long time in the police station, in any case, for not more than 15 days to 1 month and it is also held that an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised 4 / 7 expeditiously and judicially to serve the purpose that owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation. He further contended that the applicant is very much claiming the supurdnama of trolley on the ground that he is registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle and police would not be required to keep the same in safe custody and those are for the purpose of agricultural and other transportation work of the applicant for his livelihood. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined by various judgments that articles may not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month and in the present case of the applicant, the tractor and trolley have been seized by the police of Police Station -Civil Line Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) on 15.10.2025 and since then the articles are kept in the police station in an open place. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and further be pleased to pass an order to release the Tractor bearing registration No.CG-10-BX-6559 Engine No.BZNL1541527SM on Supurdnama to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 8. 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:- 5 / 7 “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 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.” 9. 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 6 / 7 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. 10. 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 said 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. 11. 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 20.11.2025 passed by the Court below is hereby set-aside. It is directed that the vehicle (Tractor) bearing registration No.CG-10-BX-6559 Engine No.BZNL1541527SM be released in favour of the petitioner on Supurdnama, as interim custody on the following conditions:- (i) Before release of the vehicle (trolley), the documents pertaining to ownership of the said vehicle be verified and proper Panchnama of the vehicles be made. (ii) Photographs of the vehicle 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.7,00,000/- (Seven 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 7 / 7 not use aforesaid vehicle (trolley) for illegal transportation of sand. 12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Vasant