1 2026:CGHC:6726-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 81 of 2026 Aman Rajpal S/o Baljinder Singh Rajpal Aged About 31 Years R/o Sindhi Colony Korba, Tehsil And District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, New-Raipur, P.S.- Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Manager New India Insurance Company Limited Korba, Regional Office, Transport Nagar Korba District- Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Station House Officer Through Police Station- Bankimongra, Korba District- Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ranjit Kumar Painkra Assistant Engineer CSPDCL Sub Station Jawali Delvadih Bankimongra Tehsil Katghora District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.02.2026 1 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents No.1 and 3. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.02.07 11:32:06 +0530 2 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ directing to Quash the Conditions Imposed by the Sessions Judge directing to pay Compensation as Damages Rupees 1,70,819/- to Respondent No 04 CSPDCL Katghora District Korba (C.G). 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no 02 Insurance Company to indemnify the Loss as the Vehicle is duly Insured with the New India Insurance Company Korba (C.G). 10.3 Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the present case in the interest of justice.” 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Korba, while allowing the application for Supurdnama under Section 503 of the BNSS, 2023, is patently illegal, without jurisdiction and suffers from a manifest error of law. It is submitted that while the learned Court was competent to consider the release of the seized vehicle on appropriate conditions relating to its production and safeguarding, it had no jurisdiction whatsoever to adjudicate upon civil liability or quantify and impose 3 compensation towards alleged damages to the electric transformer at the interlocutory stage. 4 Learned counsel further submits that the direction to pay an amount of ₹1,70,819/-, either by the petitioner or through the insurance company, travels completely beyond the scope and ambit of Section 503 BNSS, 2023 and amounts to pre- determination of liability, which can only be adjudicated in accordance with law upon conclusion of trial or before an appropriate civil forum. Such a condition virtually converts a Supurdnama proceeding into a recovery mechanism, which is impermissible in law. 5 It is further submitted that the insurance company (Respondent No. 02), though the vehicle was admittedly insured on the date of the incident, was not impleaded nor heard by the learned Trial Court, and therefore, the impugned condition violates the principles of natural justice. In the absence of the insurance company being a party, any direction fastening liability upon it is unenforceable and unsustainable, and on this very ground the insurer is refusing to indemnify the alleged loss. 6 Learned counsel also submits that since the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction, this Court is competent to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. 4 Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1. Hence, the impugned condition deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice. 7 On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative statutory remedy available under law to challenge the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage as the petitioner could have availed the remedy of appeal/revision under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code / BNSS, 2023. Learned State counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed in exercise of judicial discretion and does not warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available with the writ petition. 9 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after careful consideration of the pleadings and material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that although the learned Sessions Judge was competent to consider the application for Supurdnama under Section 503 of the BNSS, 2023, the condition imposed directing the petitioner to pay compensation of ₹1,70,819/- towards the alleged damage caused to the electric transformer is beyond the scope of jurisdiction vested in a criminal Court at the stage of interim custody of the seized vehicle. 5 10 Proceedings under Section 503 of the BNSS, 2023 are confined to the release and custody of the seized property subject to conditions ensuring its production during trial. The said provision does not empower the criminal Court to determine or enforce civil liability or to direct payment of compensation at an interlocutory stage, especially when the issue of liability is yet to be adjudicated in accordance with law. 11 This Court also takes note of the fact that the vehicle in question was admittedly insured and that the insurance company was neither impleaded nor heard before the learned Trial Court. Any direction affecting the rights or liability of a non-party, without affording an opportunity of hearing, is contrary to the principles of natural justice. 12 In view of the aforesaid, the condition contained in the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Korba, directing the petitioner to pay compensation of ₹1,70,819/- as a condition for release of the vehicle, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The remaining part of the order relating to the release of the vehicle on Supurdnama shall remain intact and shall be acted upon in accordance with law. 13 It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations regarding damage or on the quantum of compensation. The issue as to whether any compensation is payable, and if so, by whom, is left open to be decided by the 6 appropriate forum in accordance with law. 14 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu