1 / 6 2025:CGHC:56031 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3484 of 2025 Bhaiyaram Chandrakar S/o Bhekhanlal Chandrakar Aged About 70 Years R/o Ward No. 09, Village - Lalpur, Post - Bagbahra, Police Station - Bagbahra, Tahsil - Bagbahra, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Bagbahra, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 18/11/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner assailing the order dated 05/08/2025 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.27 10:37:00 +0530 2 / 6 Mahasamund, in Criminal Revision No.H-36/2025 arising out of the order dated 21/03/2025 passed by the learned JMFC, Bagbahra, District- Mahasamund, C.G. in Criminal Case No.1172/2023 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 497/503 of the BNSS for supurdnama of the petitioner’s vehicle i.e. Pick up (Chhota Hathi) bearing Registration No.CG-06-GE-9882. 3. Brief facts of the case are as projected by the petitioner are that on 10.10.2020 at about 08:10 A.M., information was received from an informant that a blue pickup vehicle (Chhota Hathi) bearing registration No. CG-06 GE-9882 was transporting illicit liquor concealed inside water jars, from a liquor shop towards Tendukona. Acting upon this information, the police along with staff and witnesses, reached the spot, where the said vehicle CG-06 GE-9882 was intercepted. Upon questioning, the driver disclosed his name as Ajay Yadav, the person sitting beside him as Dushyant Chandrakar and the person sitting in the trolley as Sanjay Chandrakar. When enquired about the jars kept in the trolley, they admitted that the jars contained "Goa Special English Liquor" which they were transporting for sale in rural areas. Upon search, one blue-colored and two green-colored water jars were found in the vehicle, each containing 33 bottles, totaling 99 bottles of Goa Special English Liquor. Each bottle contained 180 ml, thus totaling 17.820 liters of Goa Special English Liquor. The said liquor along with the blue pickup vehicle (Chhota Hathi) bearing registration No. CG-06 GE-9882 was seized, and Crime No. 207/2020 was registered under Section 34(2) 3 / 6 of the C.G. Excise Act at Police Station Bagbahra, and investigation was initiated. 4. Thereafter, the present applicant filed an application under Section 497/503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagbahra, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for supurdnama of the seized vehicle, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.03.2025. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.03.2025, the present applicant filed a revision petition under Section 397 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) which was registered as Criminal Revision No. H-36/2025. Learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) passed the impugned order dated 05.08.2025 rejecting the revision petition holding that in Police Station Bagbahara, the vehicle Pickup (Chhota Hathi) bearing registration No. CG-06 GE-9882 was seized in Crime No. 207/2020. However, on 21.03.2025, a Supurdnama (interim custody) order was passed, in which it was stated that "the vehicle Motorcycle bearing registration number CG-06 GE-9882 has been seized, and since confiscation proceedings have been initiated against the said seized motorcycle, the Supurdnama application is rejected. Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that both the Courts have rejected the Supurdnama application of the applicant solely on the ground that confiscation proceedings of the seized vehicle are pending before the Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund, whereas no such confiscation proceedings are pending. He would next contend that the 4 / 6 Collector, Mahasamund, C.G. never sent an intimation in the prescribed format by the Excise Commissioner about the initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the seized vehicle and the information has been given by the Superintendent of Police, which is contrary to the law. He would next contend that the seized vehicle is a property related to the daily use and livelihood of the applicant and in absence of the same, the applicant is facing acute financial hardships and if the said vehicle is allowed to be kept in open the same would result in mechanical damage, hence the vehicle i.e. Pick up (Chhota Hathi) bearing Registration No.CG-06-GE- 9882 may kindly be released on supurdnama. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the applicant and would submit that the trial Court has passed the order that the proceedings of confiscation has been started. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 8. In this case, the Collector has not intimated the concerned Magistrate in a format prescribed by the Excise Commissioner about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the seized vehicle as per the provisions of Section 47A (3) of the C.G. Excise Act, 1915. 9. 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 5 / 6 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.” 10. 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. 11. 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 6 / 6 period of time and no substantive action has been taken and the vehicle is still left for irreparable damages. 12. Therefore, 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 05/08/2025 & 21/03/2025 passed by the Courts below are hereby set-aside. It is directed that the vehicle i.e. Pick up (Chhota Hathi) bearing Registration No.CG-06-GE-9882 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. (iv) The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the concerned trial Court that he shall not use the said vehicle for illegal transportation of liquor. 13. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is allowed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu