1 2026:CGHC:20907 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1270 of 2026 Vandana Barvekar, D/o Dheeraj Barvekar, Aged About 35 Years R/o- Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, P.S. Khamardih, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal) Order on Board 05/05/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. Admit. 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. The present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed against the order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, C.G., whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for release of her vehicle, i.e., Activa 6G bearing registration No. CG-04-NA-4332, has been rejected. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the vehicle, i.e., Activa 6G bearing registration No. CG-04-NA-4332, owned by the petitioner, was seized in connection with Crime No.600/2025 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under the PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.05.05 16:56:58 +0530 2 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Act of 1985’). It is alleged that the accused person used the said vehicle for illegal transportation of the alleged contraband, and upon raid, the said vehicle was seized. 6. The petitioner, being the owner of the vehicle, moved an application for release of the said vehicle on Supurdnama, however, the same was rejected by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated 20.01.2026. Hence, the present petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is vehicle’s owner and is not accused of committing the alleged offence. He further submits that the said vehicle was seized on the statement of accused Aniket Maldhare who happens to be nephew of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner was totally unaware of the use of the alleged vehicle for the purpose of carrying and distributing any narcotic drugs/psychotropic substance. He placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No.87/2025 (Bishwajit Dey Vs. The State of Assam) decided on 07.01.2025 and submits if the vehicle in the present case is kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, he prays that a direction be issued to the respondent to release the vehicle to the petitioner on Supurdnama. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the offending vehicle was involved in the transportation of the alleged ganja and, therefore, opposes the prayer for release of the said vehicle on Supurdnama. 9. It is evident from the record that the petitioner is the owner of the 3 vehicle and is not shown as an accused. As per the prosecution case, the said contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused persons and not from the petitioner. 10. So far as retaining the said vehicle in police custody is concerned, it is matter of common knowledge or experience that as and when the vehicle is seized and kept in police station, not only do they occupy substantial space in police station, but upon being kept in open place are also prone to fast natural decay on account of whether conditions. That apart, several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicle will get junked so that the vehicles would become unworthy of being driven on road. Therefore, no purpose will be served to keep the said vehicle in police custody for a long time as it will turn junk and also occupy the substantial place of police station. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (200) 10 SCC 283 held that it is no use to keep such seized vehicles at Police station for a long period and it is open to the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking a bond and a guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time. 12. Further in a recent reportable decision rendered in Bishwajit Dey versus The state of Assam, Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2025, decided on 07.01.2025, Hon’ble the supreme Court held thus : “34. This Court is also of the view that if the vehicle in the present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This Court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the Vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce. 35. On the contrary, if the vehicle in question is released, it would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able to 4 earn his livelihood), to the bank/financier (who would be repaid the loan disbursed by it) and to the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be available for transportation of goods). Conclusion 36. Consequently, the present Criminal Appeal is allowed with directions to the trial Court to release the vehicle in question in the interim on superdari after preparing a video and still photographs of the vehicle and after obtaining all information/documents necessary for identification of the vehicle, which shall be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the same. Further, the appellant shall not sell or part with the ownership of the Vehicle till conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an undertaking to the trial court that he shall surrender the vehicle within one week of being so directed and/or pay the value of the vehicle (determined according to Income Tax Law on the date of its release), if so ultimately directed by the Court.” 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and Bishwajit Dey (supra), the rejection of the application for release of the vehicle on Supurdnama cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to direct that the interim custody of the vehicle, i.e., Activa 6G bearing registration No. CG-04-NA-4332, be handed over to the petitioner on Supurdnama. 14. In the result, the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur is set aside and the present petition is allowed. It is directed that, till disposal of the criminal case, the interim custody of the vehicle, i.e., Activa 6G bearing registration No. CG-04-NA-4332, be handed over to the petitioner, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial Court. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash