1 / 7 2025:CGHC:58615 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3126 of 2025 Manohar Rajput S/o Shri Ramsingh Aged About 30 Years R/o Jarhapara Gorha, Police Station Nawagarh, District - Bemetrara (C.G.) (Accused) ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chakarbhatha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 03/12/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner against the order dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure P/5) passed in Criminal Revision No.162/2025 by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG), whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner, 2 / 7 under section 497 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 by confirming the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 2720/2025, whereby under the application filed by the petitioner under Section 497 of B.N.S.S. 2023 for delivery/custody of the seized D.J. and other sound equipment and also vehicle Mazda No. C.G.-10 AS-7917 the Supurdnama has allowed only the vehicle of the subject matter of the case, the petitioner is being filed this petition. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner is a owner of the D.J. Equipments comprising 08 big boxes, six tops, 04 mousepads, 02 crossovers, 01 mixer, 01 laptop, 04 lights, 02 generators. The above sound equipments have purchased by the petitioners on 29.01.2025 to the Kaushik Electricals. The petitioner is a only business for running of the sound system on festival and marriages and other religious events, therefore, the petitioner after granting the written permission from the Sub Divisional Officer Bilha to operate sound equipment in social and religious functions. The petitioner was going to operating the sound equipment on 09.09.2025 on religious festival at Chakarbhatha area, but the without complaint by any persons, the respondent has seized the above D.J. Sound equipment along with vehicle Mazda No. C.G.-10 AS- 7919. 3. The respondent has registered the respondent crime/istgasha no. 01/2025 offence u/s 3.5.15 of Noise Act against the petitioner on 09.09.2025. Further the respondent has also seized the D.J. Sound Equipments along 3 / 7 with vehicle and Istgasha has filed before the learned J.M.F.C., Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). 4. The petitioner and owner of the vehicle Mazda have filed the application u/s 497 of B.N.S.S. 2023 for releasing and taking of supurdnama of the seized D.J. Sound Equipments and seized vehicle Mazda. The learned J.M.F.C. Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) has allowed the application of supurdnama of vehicle Mazda and dismissed the application of supurdnama of D.J. Sound 11.09.2025. Being aggrieved the order dated 11.09.2025 regarding the dismissal and refusal of supurdnama of D.J. Sound Equipments. Then the petitioner was filed the Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, is bad, illegal and contrary to the law, in the lights of the facts mentioned available on record. The respondent is wrongly mentioned in Istgasha, that the petitioner without taking of permission of conducting the sound equipments and carry the sound system on 09.09.22025 along with vehicle is a perverse and intentionally the respondent has registered the case against the petitioner and seized the D.J. Sound Equipment along with vehicle Mazda. He further contended that the petitioner has operating the sound equipments as per terms and conditions of granting written permission of the concern authority and that day the petitioner was operating a very slow volume and the noise nuisance has not been conducting the incident place, therefore the persons of incident place has 4 / 7 not been complaint, but without due of provisions of law, the respondent has registered the case against the petitioner and seized the sound equipments mala-fidely and intentionally, therefore the learned Courts below have ought to be releasing the supurdnama of D.J. Sound Equipment to the petitioner. The learned Trial Court has allowed the supurdnama of vehicle Mazda but dismissed the supurdnama of D.J. Sound Equipments, which is illegal, improper, arbitrary, unjust, hence liable to be allow by this Court. The petitioner has operating the sound equipments after granting of the order of permission and very slow sound was operated and only life of livelihood of the D.J. Sound Equipment of the petitioner. It is therefore, prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and set-aside the impugned order dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure P/5) and further may be allow the application for granting of supurdnama of D.J. Sound Equipments. 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:- “7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various 5 / 7 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 that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the Police Station in 6 / 7 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 23.09.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Court below is hereby set-aside. It is directed that the DJ Sound Equipments along with vehicle (Mazda) bearing registration No. CG-10-AS-7917 be released in favour of the petitioner on Supurdnama, as interim custody on the following conditions:- (i) Before release of the vehicle (Mazda), the documents pertaining to ownership of the said vehicle be verified and proper Panchnama of the vehicle 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.8,00,000/- (Eight Lakhs) and equivalent surety be obtained before release of vehicle and the seized items from the petitioner. 7 / 7 (iv) He shall file an affidavit giving undertaking that he shall not use aforesaid vehicle (Mazda) for illegal transportation of sand. (v) The petitioner shall file an affidavit giving undertaking that he shall not use Loud Speakers or Noise producing device at any public place and the Noise/sound produced by such device shall not be more than 10 DB of the ambient noise limit or 75 DB, whichever is lesser {as per order dated 10.10.2023 passed by this Court in WP(PIL) No.88 of 2023}. 12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Vasant