1 / 6 2025:CGHC:60507 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1509 of 2025 Niranjan Singh Paikra S/o Late Mahraj Singh Paikra Aged About 49 Years Resident Of Nagoi, Chowki Belgahana, P.S. Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Kota (Police Chowki Belgahana), District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Titra Ram Patel, Advocate For State : Ms. Binu Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 12/12/2025 1. The instant revision has been filed under Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the applicant against the order dated 02.12.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Case (Mines and Minerals) No.26/2025, 2 / 6 whereby the leaned Special Judge has rejected the application under Section 497 of BNSS for releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.06.2025 written complaint made by the complainant that during patrolling the concerned police authorities team inspected near the Arpa River at Kota then the said vehicle Tractor bearing registration no. C.G.31-B-554 engine No. NRC 2GEE0028 and chassis No. MBNTALB3RNC04081 was illegal transporting sand at near Nagoi Ghat Arpa river of P.S. Kota on suspicious information and the applicant could not present the requisite documents in subject of transporting sand due to this, FIR No. 618/2025 registered against the applicant at P.S. Kota, for the offence punishable under section 303 (2), of B.N.S. and section 4 (1), 4 (1-a) and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and seized the said vehicle by the police authority along with requisite documents which has been seized by the concerned police Station Kota. 3. The applicant is registered owner of said vehicle, and he have respective documents R.C. Book insurance etc. therefore he has filed an application for taking supurdnama of the said vehicle, which was rejected by the learned trial Court. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the order dated 02.12.2025 (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 seized vehicle is a tractor trolley which is used for the cultivation (agriculture), if not release the subject vehicle, 3 / 6 then applicant will be suffered for the cultivation and will be faced financial crisis. The learned trial Court has failed to see that the said vehicle is a machinery and is standing in the open area therefore the offending vehicle would be rubbished due to long spent of time, the said vehicle damaged which is loss to the applicant. The applicant was not transporting illegally the sand in his vehicle, with dully perrnission the sand was carrying for the using himself. Due to illegal seized the vehicle, applicant is facing financial crisis for survival his entire family by depending of the said vehicle. The aforesaid vehicle is kept on PS Kota in open place and due to non function of the said vehicle, the vehicle has got damage on the all parts. It is therefore, prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and to set-aside the order dated 02.12.2025 (Annexure A-1) and also to release said vehicle Tractor bearing registration no. C.G.-31-B-554 engine No. NRC 2GEE0028 and chasis No. MBNTALB3RNC04081 to the applicant on supurdnama, in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. 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:- 4 / 6 “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.” 8. Similar stand has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, 5 / 6 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 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. 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), the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the Court below is hereby set-aside. It is directed that the vehicle bearing registration No. C.G.-31-B-554 engine No. NRC 2GEE0028 and chasis No. MBNTALB3RNC04081 be released in favour of the applicant on Supurdnama, as interim custody on the following conditions:- (i) Before release of the vehicle, 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 6 / 6 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 applicant. (iv) He shall file an affidavit giving undertaking that he shall not use aforesaid vehicle for illegal transportation of sand. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Vasant