1 / 5 2025:CGHC:55802 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1393 of 2025 Shiv Kumar Verma S/o Late Dwarika Prasad Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o- Village Janji, Thana Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 17/11/2025 1. The instant revision has been filed under Section 438/442 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. By way of the instant revision, the applicant is challenging the order dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No.58/2025, whereby the learned Courts below has rejected the application of the applicant for releasing his vehicle on Supurdnama. VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.11.17 18:35:29 +0530 2 / 5 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.07.2025, Masturi police station received information that a person named Neeraj Verma alias Monu Verma, resident of village Padhi Sipat, was going to take Ganiyari police station Kota from Bargarh, Odisha in a grey colour WagonR vehicle number CG 10-BQ-9133 for illegal sale of Ganja from Bargarh, Odisha via Jayaram Nagar Raliya road. On verification of the information received, along with the accompanying staff and witnesses, a cordon was laid near Jayaram Nagar Raliya road at the place mentioned by the informer. 20 kg 100 grams of narcotic substance Ganja, WagonR car and mobile were found in the possession of accused Neeraj Verma alias Monu. After confiscating it, after taking all the legal action under NDPS provisions on the spot, a rural report was prepared and the accused along with the seized narcotic substance Ganja, 20 kg 100 grams, WagonR car used for transporting Ganja and one mobile phone of the accused were seized and taken into police custody. Thus, from the perusal of the seizure memo, it is shown that on 01.07.2025 and from the spot itself, the vehicle WagonR number CG 10-BQ-9133 was seized from the possession of co-accused Neeraj Verma alias Monu Verma. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 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 10.09.2025 is bad in law, perverse and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and also not 3 / 5 sustainable before the eye of law. He 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 and if the same was not released on Supurdnama to the applicant 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; 4 / 5 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.” 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 5 / 5 exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the vehicles can be released to the applicant, 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 (supra), the instant revision is allowed and the order dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) is hereby set-aside. It is directed that the vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-10-BQ-9133, therefore, the vehicle be released in favour of the applicant, 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 applicant. (iv) The applicant shall file an affidavit giving undertaking that he shall not use aforesaid vehicle for illegal transportation. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Vasant