1 2025:CGHC:55349 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1378 of 2025 1 - Sunit Kumar Lahre S/o Shiv Narayan Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sendri, P.S. Koni, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Koni, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 13/11/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally at motion stage. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order 2 dated 25.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Case (Mines and Minerals) No. 01/2025 whereby the learned court below has rejected the application of the applicant (owner of the vehicle) under Section 497 of BNSS, 2023 for releasing his vehicle Tractor bearing Registration No. CG-10-BW-0350 and Trolley bearing Registration No. CG-10-BW-9309 on Supurdnama. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.06.2025 a written complaint made by the complainant and referred as Istgasa No. 15/2025, 16/2025, 17/2025, 18/2025, 19/2025 and 20/2025 on 12.06.2025 during patrolling the concerned police authorities team inspected near the Arpa River at Koni then the said vehicle tractor bearing registration no. CG 10 BW 0350 and trolley CG 10 BW 9309 chassis no STPL3142425 was parked on suspicious and the applicant could not present the requisite documents in subject of transporting sand due to this, FIR No. 282/2025 registered against the applicant at P.X. Koni, for the offence punishable under Section 303(2), 3(5) of BNS and Section 4 (1) A and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1967 and seized the said vehicle by the police authority along with requisite documents which has been seized by the concerned police station Koni. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that trial Court has committed an error by rejecting the application of applicant 3 seeking the vehicle in question on supurdnama as he is the registered owner of vehicle. He further submits that the seized tractor and trolley is lying idle at Police Station and if the same is not allowed to be used for a longer time, it is likely to rot or rust and no useful purpose is going to be served in keeping the vehicle idle with the police; rather if the applicant is permitted to use the seized vehicle it would be in running condition. Therefore, he prays for the release of the said seized tractor on Supurdnama in favour of the applicant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 7. 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 4 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.” 8. 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. 9. In the instant case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 vehicle can be released to the applicant, who is claiming himself to be the owner of the vehicle. On perusal of the records it transpires that the applicant has filed a copy of vehicle registration certificate. There is no other compelling reason warranting rejection of application for release of the seized vehicle under interim custody of the applicant. It is also pertinent 5 to mention here that in many cases, it is found that vehicles are standing for long period even after confiscation order has been passed and despite 2-3 years, no substantive action has been taken and the vehicle is still standing in stationed condition. 10. 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) and also considering the facts of the case, submissions made by counsel for parties, the fact that the applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served to keep the seized vehicle in the police custody and it would be appropriate to release the seized vehicle Tractor bearing Registration No. CG-10-BW-0350 and Trolley bearing Registration No. CG-10-BW-9309 on Supurdnama in favour of the applicant. 11. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the Special Judge Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur C.G., is hereby set aside. The seized vehicle is directed to be released on Supurdnama in favour of the applicant 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 vehicle be made. (ii) Photographs of the vehicle should be taken and bond 6 should also be produced that the vehicle would be produced as and when required. (iii) Proper security i.e. personal bond of Rs. 6,00,000/- (six lakhs) and equivalent surety be obtained before release of vehicle. (iv) He shall file an affidavit giving undertaking that he shall not use aforesaid vehicle for illegal transportation of sand. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima