1 2025:CGHC:8864 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 644 of 2025 1 - Aalim Sai S/o Mohd. Firoz Shah Aged About 21 Years Caste - Muslim R/o Village - Murgu, P.S. - Sisai, District - Gumla (Jharkhand). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Jashpur, District - Jashpur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Manisha Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Priya Sharma, Panel lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 20/02/2025 1. The present petition is being filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 17.12.2024 passed in Criminal Revision (Appeal) No. 20/2024 by learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) arising out of the order dated 18.09.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 1498/2024 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur (C.G.) whereby rejected the application filed by the petitioner for Supurdnama of 2 the seized property. 2. The case in nutshell is that on 07.08.2024 the aforesaid Pick-up vehicle of petitioner and his mobile have been seized by the Police of Police Station, Jashpur in connection with Crime No. 39/2024 registered at Police Station, Jashpur for the offence punishable under Section 4, 6, 10 of Chhattisgarh Krishak Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam, 2004 and Section 11 of Cruelty to Animal Act against the petitioner and co-accused Lal Khan. The petitioner being owner of the seized property vehicle and mobile, therefore the petitioner filed an application for grant of interim custody/Supurdnama of the seized vehicle and mobile. Vide order dated 18.09.2024 the learned CJM, Jashpur has partly allowed the application and directed to release the seized mobile to the petitioner, however rejected the application for grant of supurdnama of the seized Pick-Up vehicle. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is registered owner of offending vehicle, and he is having a valid and effective documents required for the said vehicle, therefore he should be entitled for the Supurdnama. That the trail Court has failed to see that the offending vehicle is standing in the open area for a long time and the vehicle is getting damaged which is an ultimate loss of the petitioner. That the vehicle was not involved in any crime, but still the police has seized the vehicle only on the basis of suspicion, therefore, it will be appropriate to release the vehicle on Supurdnama. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submission made in this regard. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and order passed by the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by counsel for the parties and further considering the order passed by the Hon’ble 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: i. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; ii. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; iii. 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; and iv. 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.” 4 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 pertinent to mention the most important fact of the case that the petitioner has a right to raise any other grounds and also reserving to submit all relevant documents and it is also necessary to note that no useful purpose would be served if the said vehicle is allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the said vehicle can be released to the petitioner, who is claiming himself to be the owner of the article, so that he can use it and the said vehicle does not become junk after some time. It is also pertinent to mention here that in this case, it is found that the said vehicle is left for natural decay for a long period of time and no substantive action has been taken and the said vehicle is still left for irreparable damages. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal desai(supra) and Multani hanifbhai Kalubhai(supra), the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision (Appeal) no. 20/2024 is hereby set aside. 5 9. In view of the above, it is directed that the said vehicle be immediately be released in favour of the petitioner as interim custody on the following condition that the petitioner would furnish a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) with one surety as Supurdnama in the concerned Trial Court, keeping in view that there must not be any alteration in the physical appearance of the said vehicle. It is also pertinent that the said vehicle shall be submitted by the petitioner itself on its own cost, if need so arises. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present petition is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima