1 2025:CGHC:61827 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1524 of 2025 Rajesh Sahu S/o Chhannulal Aged About 36 Years R/o A-25, Soubhagya Nagar, Semra Kala Tahsil/ Bhopal (M.P.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Singhoda Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubham Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 19/12/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally at motion stage. 2 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Special Judge NDPS Act Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Case No. 75/2024. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 16.07.2024 at about 8:40 pm the patrolling team as received the information that the Ganja is carrying in the vehicle Chhota Hathi bearing registration no. MP 04 LD 8429 and coming from Orissa to Chhattisgarh. On the information the police Singhora has inform to SDOP Mahasamund and recover the vehicle from NH 53 near Village Rehatikhol during Naka Checking. After searching the vehicle the police has recovered 25 kg of ganja and seized the vehicle. The police has registered the crime against the applicant and after completion of the investigation the police has filed the challan before the learned trial Court on 24.10.2024. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that trial Court has committed an error by rejecting the application of applicant seeking the vehicle in question on supurdnama as he is the registered owner of vehicle. He further submits that the seized vehicle is lying idle at 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 going to be served in keeping the vehicle idle with the police; rather if the applicant is permitted to use the seized vehicle it would be in running condition. Therefore, he prays for the release of the said seized vehicle on Supurdnama in favour of the 3 applicant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant 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. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the applicant. 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:- “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 4 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. 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 also considering the facts of the case, submissions made by counsel for parties, the fact that the applicant is the licensed owner of the pistol 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 on Supurdnama in favour of the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Saraipalli, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) is hereby set aside. The seized pistol is directed to be released on Supurdnama in favour of the applicant on the following conditions:- (i) Before release of the vehicle, the documents pertaining to ownership of the said vehicle be verified and 5 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. 7,00,000/- (Seven Lakhs rupees) and equivalent surety be obtained before release of vehicle. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima