1 2026:CGHC:1547 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 69 of 2026 1 - Manoj Pandey @ Brijbhal Pandey S/o Sabhajit Pandey, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Sai Mandir Road, Mahadev Ghat, Raipura, P.S. D.D. Nagar, District Raipur C.G. (Wrongly Mentioned As Aged About 48 Year In The Impugned Order). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (12.01.2026) 1. The petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, against the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 37/2025, as well as order dated 07.02.2025, passed by the 09th Additional Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.), in Criminal Revision No. 248/2024 arising out of the order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) wherein the application filed by the applicant under Section 457 of CrPC for grant of Supurdnama of 2 mobile phone, DVR, GDMSS and DVR Combo 20 and cash of Rs. 6,50,000/- and 6 pen-drives has been rejected. 2. The above said article and Rs.6,50,000/- were seized from the petitioner Manoj Pandey by the Police in Crime No. 172/2023 registered at Police Station Pandari, District Raipur for the offence under Sections 384, 386 of IPC. An application was moved by the present petitioner for releasing of the seized articles and Rs.6,50,000/- on Supurdnama which was rejected by the JMFC, Raipur, District Raipur vide order dated 27.04.2024. Against the said order of the trial Court, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the 09th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) which was allowed vide impugned order dated 07.02.2025 by imposing a condition that an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- is to be disbursed after taking bank guarantee from the petitioner and thereafter on producing a bank guarantee as Supurdnama, the seized amount of Rs.6,50,000/- would be released to the petitioner. This condition of the impugned order has been challenged in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is praying for disbursal of Rs. 6,50,000/- to the petitioner on Supurdnama as he is unable to furnish bank guarantee. He further submits that the Revisional Court, while allowing the revision erred in stipulating the condition regarding bank guarantee. It is prayed that the seized amount may be released on Supurdnama on the personal bond of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned order. 3 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. In the instant case, the trial Court rejected the Supurdnama application of the petitioner against which the petitioner preferred a revision. The Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 07.02.2025 directed to release the seized amount with condition that the petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee as Supurdnama, with an objective of protecting the interests of the complainant. 7. In the opinion of this Court, imposing condition of furnishing a bank guarantee would be an onerous condition, therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that on petitioner’s furnishing a surety/guarantor instead of bank guarantee in the concerned trial Court, the seized amount of Rs.6,50,000/- in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner as an interim custody imposing proper conditions. 8. With the aforesaid direction/observations, the present petition stands partly allowed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.