1 2026:CGHC:14005 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 304 of 2026 1 - Vaibhav Katare S/o Shivshankar Ramaji Katare, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Baba Mastanshah Ward, Near By Turskar Nursing Home, P.S Bhandara, Distt. Bhandara, Maharastra. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Fingeshar, Distt. Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For the applicant : Mr. Gajanand Ratre, Advocate For the State : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, P.L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 24.03.2026 1. The applicant has filed this revision Petition under Section 397/401 of CrPC read with Section 503 of BNSS, against the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 in Special Criminal Case No. 239/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur (C.G), whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 503 of BNSS for grant of Supurdnama of seized white Color Honda City four wheeler vehicle has been rejected. 2. In sum and substance, the applicant prays for a direction to SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.03.27 16:08:14 +0530 2 release offending vehicle as an interim custody on Supurdnama. 3. The facts of the present case are that the Police Station Fingeshar, District-Gariyaband(C.G.) seized a white Honda City vehicle (MH04/H.J./1555) from the accused persons under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, alleging it was used to transport 26 kg 930 grams of ganja, a narcotic substance. 4. The applicant, who is the owner of the vehicle, moved an application under Section 503 of BNSS seeking custody of the said vehicle on supurdnama, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur (C.G), vide the impugned order dated 19.01.2026. Hence, the present revision 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the petitioner is owner of the offending vehicle and is not accused of committing the offence. The applicant has having valid and effective documents required for the said vehicle, therefore, he is entitled for the Supurdnama of the said vehicle. The seized vehicle is machinery property and due to its lying idle in an open place, its machinery parts are being deteriorated day by day, therefore, it would be appropriate to release the vehicle on Supurdnama. He relies on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported AIR 2003 SC-638 and prays that this petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Court be set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned State Counsel supports the impugned 3 order and submits that there are four accused in the case: Shivshankar Ramaji Katare (the applicant's father), Firoz Istari, Ajay Arya, and Prem Kumar Mahor, involved in the said offence. The offending veicle is being used by the applicant/owner’s father for illegal activities. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the vehicle should not be released on Supurdnama. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. it is evident from the record that it is undisputed that the applicant is the owner of the offending vehicle and is not shown to be an accused in the said offence. 9. As far as retaining the vehicle in police custody is concerned, it is a matter of common knowledge that whenever a vehicle is seized and kept in a police station, it not only occupies substantial space but is also prone to fast natural decay due to weather conditions when kept in the open. Apart from that, several valuable and costly parts of the vehicle are likely to be removed, rendering the vehicle unworthy of being driven on the road. Therefore, no purpose will be served by keeping the vehicle in police custody for a long time as it will turn into junk and also occupy substantial space in the police station. 10. 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. 11. 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 : 4 “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 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.” 12. In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sunderbhai Desai 5 (Supra) and Bishwajit Dey (Supra), the rejection of the application for releasing the vehicle on interim custody cannot be allowed to sustain. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the present revision petition. 13. In the result, the impugned orders passed by the learned Special Judge is set aside and the present revision petition is allowed. 14. Accordingly, it is directed that the custody of the seized white color Honda City (four wheeler) vehicle bearing Regn. No. MH04/H.J./1555 be handed over to the applicant by way of interim measures on his furnishing a Supurdnama in sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and a bank guarantee of Rs.2,00,000/-. The trial Court may impose any other reasonable condition(s) on the applicant while releasing the offending vehicle. 15.With the above direction/observation, this revision petition is allowed in part. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.