1 2025:CGHC:58805 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3673 of 2025  Sheetal Subhas Pal S/o Narayan Pal, Aged About 64 Years R/o H.No. 1055, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Divya Sahu, on behalf of Mr. Rajeev kumar Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Laxmeen Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 04/12/2025 1. This petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 104/2025, whereby the application of the applicant for release of Vehicle Kia Seltos car bearing registration No. CG-04-MV-1022 on Supurdnama/interim custody, has been rejected. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.05.2025, the police Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.04 13:50:45 +0530 2 of police station- New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur, acting on the information received from an informant, conducted proceedings under the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. At the place of incident, near Ramrama Residency, Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur, the accused Siddharth Pandey, along with his two associates/co- accused Shubhank Pal and Sagar Peter, was found roaming in car bearing registration No. CG-04-MV-1022 and selling narcotic substances. Upon lawful action. 2.670 grams of cocaine was seized from the possession of accused Siddharth Pandey, 3.160 grams of cocaine was seized from co-accused Shubhank Pal and 1.620 grams of cocaine was seized from co-accused Sagar Peter. Further, in his memorandum statement, accused Siddharth Pandey stated that the seized cocaine had been purchased from accused Soumya Chakravarti by contacting him on mobile number 7058433663. Acting on this information, accused Soumya Chakravarti was apprehended, interrogated and her memorandum statement was recorded, in which she admitted supplying cocaine Siddharth Pandey. Consequently, the said accused Soumya Chakravarti was also arrested. Thus, offences under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act were registered against the accused persons and a charge-sheet has been filed. the police seized the vehicle Kia car bearing registration No. CG-04-MV-1022 and the mobile phones seized from the possession of the accused persons Shubhank Pal and Siddharth Pandey, namely (i) iPhone 13 Pro Max having IMEI Nos. 352990486192873 and 352990486556588, and (ii) iPhone 16 having IMEI No. 3 358245258624245. Being registered owner of the seized vehicle Kia car bearing registration No. CG-04-MV-1022, the present applicant filed application for release the vehicle in Supurdnama, but the learned Trial Court rejected the same on the ground that the accused persons used the seized mobile phones and the vehicle for purchasing and selling the narcotic substance cocaine, for contacting co-accused persons and for transporting cocaine by keeping it in the vehicle and roaming around to sell it. Therefore, the above-mentioned mobile phones and vehicle have been seized, which are subject matter of evidence. The provisions relating to confiscation of seized property are contained in Sections 60 and 63. As per the provisions of Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, confiscation proceedings can be undertaken for the seized property/vehicle, which must be conducted in accordance with the provisions given under Section 63 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. In such circumstances, it does not appear justified to release the seized vehicle-Kia car bearing registration No. CG-04/MV-1022-to the applicant Sheetal Subhash Pal. Hence this petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that trial Court has committed an error by rejecting the application of petitioner seeking the vehicle in question on supurdnama as he is the registered owner of vehicle. He further submits that the seized Car is lying idle at concerned 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 4 going to be served in keeping the vehicle idle with the police; rather if the Petitioner is permitted to use the seized vehicle it would be in running condition. Therefore, he prays for the release of the said seized car/vehicle on Supurdnama in favour of the Petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 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 5 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 the 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 vehicle can be released to the petitioner, who is claiming herself to be the owner of the vehicle. On perusal of the records it transpires that the petitioner has filed a copy of vehicle registration certificate and the petitioner is not an accused in this criminal case. There is no other compelling reason warranting 6 rejection of application for release of the seized vehicle under interim custody of the Petitioner. It is also pertinent 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. 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) and also considering the facts of the case, submissions made by counsel for parties, the fact that the petitioner 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 Kia Seltos car bearing registration No. CG-04-MV- 1022 on Supurdnama in favour of the petitioner. 10.Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 25.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge NDPS Act Raipur District Raipur is hereby set aside. The seized vehicle 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 7 should also be produced that the vehicle would be produced as and when required. (iii) Proper security i.e. personal bond of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Sevan lakhs) and equivalent surety be obtained before release of vehicle. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti