1 2026:CGHC:5316 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 215 of 2026 Prabhdeep Singh Gill S/o Amrik Singh Gill Aged About 30 Years R/o New Gill Trailor Service, Near Lukand Pump, Tatibandh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station - Amanaka, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For the petitioner : Mr. Rudrapratap Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. This petition has been filed u/s 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the order dated 01.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Raipur, in Special Criminal Case No. 241 of 2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner U/s 503 of the BNSS for handing over the interim ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.01.31 11:23:47 +0530 2 custody of the seized Truck Trailer bearing Regn.No. C.G. 04- HX-6227 has been rejected. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that the petitioner is owner of the aforesaid Trailer which has been seized by the Police Station Amanaka, Raipur in Crime No.356/2025 for the offence u/s 21(B) & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act on the allegation that the said vehicle was indulged in transporting 34.60 grams of Heroin. The said crime has been registered against the accused Manjeet Singh and Hardeep Kumar and the Criminal Case No.241/2025 is pending. . 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is registered owner vehicle and the offending vehicle was seized from the possession of accused Manjeet Singh and Hardeep Kumar therefore, petitioner is entitled for the Supurdnama of the said vehicle. He next submits that the seized vehicle is machinery property and since it is lying idle in an open place, its machinery parts are being deteriorated day to day, therefore, it will be appropriate to release the vehicle on Supurdnama. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection. 6. The learned trial Court in rejection order has observed that the the narcotic substance Heroin (Chitta) weighing 34.40 grams 3 kept was seized in the cabin of the offending vehicle trailer No.C.G.04/HX-6227 from the possession of the accused Hardeep Kumar and Manjeet Singh and the said vehicle trailer was also seized for transporting the narcotic substance. The trial Court further observed that mere submission of the charge sheet cannot be considered to have changed the nature of crime and by handing over the said vehicle on Supurdnama, the possibility of using the vehicle again in such a crime cannot be ruled out. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, held that keeping seized vehicles at police stations for long periods is useless and undesirable, as they turn into junk. The Court further laid down the guiding principles for releasing the seized vehicle at Paras 7 & 17 which are quoted below: "7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: i. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; ii. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; iii. if proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepare, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of property in detail; and iv. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police station for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and 4 guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles." 8. Similar stand was also taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, reported in 2013 (3) SCC 240, wherein the Court expressed the view that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the Police Station in open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of weather conditions for a long period. 9. In the instant case, it is pertinent to mention the most important fact that the offending vehicles was seized on 03.11.2025 from the co-accused Manjee Singh and Hardeep Kumar for transporting narcotic substance by them and the petitioner is stated to be registered owner and he has not been arrayed as an accused, and there has been no objection to his ownership, therefore, he has a right to raise any other grounds and submit all relevant documents to prove the ownership. It is also necessary to note that no useful purpose would be served if the said vehicle is allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the said vehicle can be released to the registered owner who can get the same in optimum utilization, as such the vehicle does not turn into junk. It is also pertinent to mention here that in this case, it is found that the said vehicle is still left in open atmosphere for a considerable time and it would get natural decay by 5 passage of time. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai (Supra) and Bishwajit Dey (Supra), the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 01.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Raipur is hereby set aside. 10. In view of the discussion, it is directed that the interim custody of the said vehicle be immediately be handed over to the petitioner till final disposal of the criminal case on the following conditions : (i) The petitioner shall furnish an appropriate bond in sum of Rs.25,00,000/- with one surety/guarantor as Supurdnama before the concerned Trial Court for its satisfaction; (ii) He shall not transfer or sell the vehicle to anybody; (iii) He shall not alter or change the physical shape or destroy any part of the said vehicle in any manner. (iv) He shall return the said vehicle at any point of time, if need so arises. 11. With the aforesaid observation/directions, the present petition is allowed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao