1 2025:CGHC:58406 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2915 of 2025 Kunwar Singh S/o Samar Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Salka (Nawagaon) Police Station Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Chowki Belgahna, Police Station- Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 02/12/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS challenging the impugned order dated 23.08.2025 passed in MJC Cri. No.43/2025, by which, learned Special Judge/Session Judge, 2 Bilaspur, (CG), has rejected the application of petitioner filed under Section 503 of BNSS seeking Tractor bearing registration No.CG10-BE-7869 & Trolly bearing registration No.CG10-BG- 2684 on supurdnama which was seized by the police of Police Chowki Belgahna, Police Station- Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in connection with Crime No.612/2025 for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) of BNS and Sections 4(1), 4(1)A & 21 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Registration) Act, 1957. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has committed an illegality by rejecting the application of the petitioner for supurdnama of the vehicle in question (Tractor & Trolly). The petitioner is the registered owner of Tractor & Trolly and with the passage of time, condition of vehicle would deteriorate, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in police custody and, therefore, it is prayed that said vehicle be handed over to the petitioner on Supurdnama on the terms and conditions as may be deemed fit by this Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the contention made by the petitioner. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs.State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 has laid down the guiding/principles for releasing the vehicle seized by police. Relevant para of which is reproduced below:- 3 “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 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.” 6. Similar stand has also been taken by Supreme Court in case of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, reported in 2013 (3) SCC 240, wherein Supreme Court has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the 4 Police Station in open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of weather conditions for a long period. 7. Considering facts of the case, submissions of counsel for the parties, the fact that the petitioner is the registered owner of vehicle in question, with the passage of time, condition of vehicle would deteriorate, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in police custody, further considering the decisions of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai (supra), this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case for releasing the seized vehicle (tractor & trolly) on Supurdnama in favour of the petitioner. 8. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and order dated 23.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court below is set aside. The vehicle in question is directed to be released on Supurdnama in favour of the petitioner 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 should also be produced that the vehicle would be produced as and when required. (iii) Proper security, i.e. ,personal bond of Rs.8,00,000/- and equivalent surety be obtained before release of vehicle. (iv) Petitioner shall file an affidavit giving undertaking that he shall not use the aforesaid vehicle for any illegal transportation of sand. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J.