1 / 6 2025:CGHC:53377 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3023 of 2025 Dev Kumar Sahu S/o Ram Prasad Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Kachhar, P.S. Koni, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Thana- Koni, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Deeksha Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 31/10/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner herein invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS by challenging the validity of the order dated 09/09/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, under Mines and Minerals (Development Regulation) Act, 1957, Bilaspur (C.G.) in special Case (Mines and Minerals) No. 01/2025, while exercising the 2 / 6 power of section 497, the application of the petitioner for handover the vehicle bearing number CG 10-BX-1645 along with trolly on supurdnama has been rejected on the ground of hypothetical presumption. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the former doing the agriculture work in his land and for this purpose, on 17.12.2024 the petitioner was purchased the Solis Tractor & Trolley after taken the Bank loan from the Indusind Bank Ltd and the said vehicle (Solis Tractor, Trolley) was duly registered on 31.01.2025 in RTO Bilaspur and having the registration number as CG 10-BX-1645. Since the petitioner doing the agriculture work through his own tractor and having the valid driving license issued by the Chhattisgarh state and the vehicle of the petitioner is duly insured for the period of 17.12.2024 to 16.12.2025 and the petitioner never misused his vehicle. On 12.06.2025, the vehicle being number CG 10-BX-1645 has been sized by the Koni police on the allegation of the said vehicle was involved in illegal transportation of sand from Arpa River. The petitioner had denied the allegation and informed them the sand kept by the Gram Panchayat Kachhar at one place for construction work is being taken to another place for construction work, for which the permission for transportation has been given by the Gram Panchayat Kachhar to the petitioner on 07.06.2025. The petitioner had submitted the Copy of Gram Panchayat Certificate dated 07.06.2025, but despite the above facts, the police included the vehicle of the petitioner for involvement of illegal transportation of sand from Arpa River and Sized the vehicle. Subsequently the ishtgasa has 3 / 6 been submitted by the police before the in-charge officer of mining department and informed them as the vehicle bearing number CG 10- BX-1645 has been seized by the police under section106 of BNSS. It is pertinent to be noted here that, the police sized the vehicle of the petitioner from the road, in which the dried sand was loaded, whereas the 5 other vehicles have been sized by the police in other place in which the wet sand were loaded. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the learned trial court on the basis of hypothetical presumption, whereas there is no possibility of alleged crime has been proved by the police in respect of the petitioner vehicle. The impugned order dated 09.09.2025 is bad in law, perverse and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and also not sustainable before the eye of law. She further contended that the petitioner is registered owner of alleged vehicle, and he is having a valid and effective documents required for the said vehicle; therefore, he should be entitled for the Supurdnama. The trial Court has failed to see that the said vehicle is standing in the open area for a long time and the vehicle is getting damaged which is an ultimate loss of the petitioner. The vehicle was not involved in any crime, but still the police has seized the vehicle, therefore, it will be appropriate to release the vehicle on Supurdnama. The trial takes the long time and the interim application for released the vehicle has been rejected by the learned trial court by ignoring the facts as the vehicle was purchased by the petitioner after taken the loan from the Indusind Bank and the said vehicle is a means of 4 / 6 livelihood of the petitioner and if the same was not released on supurdnama to the petitioner then he will be suffered with irreparable loss. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 6. 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 evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of 5 / 6 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.” 7. 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 open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of weather conditions for a long period. 8. 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 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. 9. 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 6 / 6 (supra), the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set-aside. It is directed that the vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-10-BX-1645 (Tractor with Trolly), therefore, the vehicle be released in favour of the petitioner, as interim custody 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 vehicles be made. (ii) Photographs of the vehicles 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.5,00,000/- (Five 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 not use aforesaid vehicle for illegal transportation of sand. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Vasant