1 2025:CGHC:9286 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 660 of 2025 Rashmi Shrivastav W/o Manoj Shrivastav Aged About 40 Years R/o. Yadav Para, Raja Talab, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ---- Respondent For Petitioner Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate. For State Mr. Laxmin Kashyap, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 21/02/2025 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, challenging the orders dated 17/10/2024 & 09.01.2025 passed by the respondent/Collector. 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this case are that in CRMP No. 2358/2024, this Court has passed the following on 02/09/2024 :- "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 15.07.2024 passed by the respondent-Collector is hereby set-aside. It is directed that the said vehicle 2 immediately be released in favour of the petitioner as interim custody on the following condition that the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as supurdnama in the concerned Trial Court, keeping in view that there must not be any alteration in the physical appearance of the article. It is also pertinent that the article shall be submitted by the petitioner itself on his own cost, if need so arises.’ 3. In compliance of order dated 02/09/2024 passed by this Court, the respondent/Collector vide order dated 17/10/2024 directed the petitioner to submit bank guarantee of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) in order to take interim custody of the vehicle in question on surpurdnama i.e. Maruti Baleno bearing registration No.CG04-MT- 0319. Petitioner (owner of vehicle in question) has moved an application before the respondent/Collector for modification of said order/direction of submitting the bank guarantee of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) as he is unable to submit the same, however, said application came to be rejected on 09.01.2025. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned orders dated 17/10/2024 & 09.01.2025 are illegal and contrary to well settled principles of giving the custody of seized vehicle, therefore, same are liable to be set aside. The respondent/Collector has misinterpreted the order of this Court’s dated 02/09/2024 passed in CRMP No.2358/2024 and vide order dated 17/10/2024 directed the petitioner to submit Bank Guarantee of sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs Rupees), which the petitioner is unable to submit, however, he is ready to furnish ‘personal bond and security of like amount’ instead of ‘bank guarantee’, for which, he moved the application, 3 which was rejected vide order dated 09/01/2025. Hence, it is prayed that present petition may be allowed and petitioner be permitted to furnish personal bond and security instead of bank guarantee in order to take interim custody of the vehicle in question. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the contention made by counsel for the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders of the respondent/Collector. 7. In view of above facts and prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, this Court feels inclined to allow the present petition. 8. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 17/10/2024 & 09.01.2025 passed by the respondent/Collector are hereby set aside. The vehicle in question is directed to be released on Supurdnama in favour of the petitioner on furnishing the personal bond of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs Rupees) instead of ‘bank guarantee’. Before release of the vehicle, the documents pertaining to ownership of the said vehicle be verified. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.