1 / 5 2025:CGHC:59073 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1477 of 2025 Ramesh S/o Ramdewa Aged About 53 Years Resident Of Village Majra, Tahsil Narnaud, District - Hisar (Hr) At Present Resident Of Village Birdanan, District - Fatehabad, (Hariyana) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station Nagarnar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 05/12/2025 1. The instant revision has been filed under Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the applicant against the order dated 27.10.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed in Special Criminal Case No.38/2025 by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bastar, place Jagdalpur (C.G.), whereby the learned Court below has rejected the application of the applicant under Section 497 of BNSS for releasing his vehicle on Supurdnama. VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.12.06 11:15:41 +0530 2 / 5 2. Brief facts of the case are that the offending vehicle was seized by the police station Nagarnar in Crime No. 30/2025 alleging that on 09.02.2025 the police has seized the vehicle Bharat BenZ 1617 R BSIV- 10 registration No. HR-61-C-1025 chassis No. MEC0794CFHPΟ 22094 for commission of the offence under section 20(b) of N.D.P.S. Act, from the possession of the accused persons. The applicant is owner of the said vehicle and he had filed an application under section 497 of Cr. P. C. before the learned Court below for taking Supurdnama of the said vehicle, and categorically stated that the applicant is registered owner of the said vehicle and hence he is entitled to take his vehicle which has been seized by the police, but the learned Court below has dismissed his application vide its order dated 27.10.2025. Hence this criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the order dated 27.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) is illegal, improper and incorrect and therefore, liable to be set-aside and not sustainable according to the law. He further contended that the applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and he has having original document of the offending vehicle, therefore he should be entitled for the Supurdnama. The learned trial Court has failed to see that the offending vehicle is a machinery and is standing in the open area therefore condition of the vehicle will be determinate with the passage of time, thus causing is loss of the applicant. The applicant is not involved in connection with crime and also his vehicle was not involved. in any crime, but the police has seized the vehicle only on the basis of suspicion and due to which, the applicant would suffer irreparable loss. The applicant is registered owner of the 3 / 5 said vehicle and he was using to the said vehicle for commercial work and due to custody in police, the applicant is facing great financial loss and hence the said vehicle is liable to the released on Supurdnama. Therefore, it is prayed that this criminal revision may be allowed and the impugned order dated 27.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) may also be set aside and release the vehicle on Supurdnama. 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 4 / 5 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 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 said 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. 5 / 5 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 petition is allowed and the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the Court below is hereby set-aside. It is directed that the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-61-C-1025 chassis No. MEC0794CFHPΟ 22094 be released in favour of the applicant on Supurdnama, as interim custody on the following conditions:- (i) Before release of the vehicle (trolley), the documents pertaining to ownership of the said vehicle be verified and proper Panchnama of the vehicles be made. (ii) Photographs of the vehicle 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.7,00,000/- (Seven 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. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Vasant