1 2026:CGHC:4998 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 75 of 2026 1 - Manoj Kumar Patel S/o Late Tijram Patel, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Lokhandi Damadpara, P.S. Sakri, Tehsil Sakri, District Bilaspur, C.G. 2 - Raj Patel S/o Derharam Patel, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Lokhandi Damadpara, P.S. Sakri, Tehsil Sakri, District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kumar Kujur, Advocate For State : Ms. Avleen Juneja, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 29.01.2026 1. The appellants have preferred this instant appeal under Section 30-B(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, being aggrieved by the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957/Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Case (Mines and Minerals) No. 30/2025 (Crime No. 1225/2025), whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the appellants U/s 497 of the BNSS for supurdnama of the tractor SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.01.31 10:30:46 +0530 2 ISR-333 (Registration No. CG-11-D.A. 2372) and trolley ( C.G.- 10-A.G. 7609). 2. The case in nutshell is that Mineral Inspector Raju Yadav filed a written report before Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, stating that on 15.10.2025, during patrolling in the village Mangla Path Baba area, a tractor trolley was found illegally transporting mineral sand without valid documents, without paying royalty. Consequently, the offending vehicle, tractor-trolley bearing registration No. CG-11-DA-2372 and CG-10-AG-7609, was seized by police officials of Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur. Based on the report, a case was registered as Crime No. 1225/2025, punishable under Sections 303(2), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 4(1)(A), 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957. The appellants, being the owners of the said vehicle, filed the application under Section 497 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 451 of CrPC) before the learned trial Court, seeking release of the vehicle on Supurdnama, stating that they are the registered owners and are entitled to take custody of the vehicle seized by the police. However, the application was rejected by the learned trial Court. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No. 2 (Raj Patel) is the registered owner of the tractor, and one Saurab Singh, S/o Brajesh Singh, was the registered owner of the trolley, who died on 18.01.2021. It is further submitted that Brajesh Singh, the father of Saurabh Singh, gave an authority letter in favour of appellant No. 2 but the name of Brajesh Singh 3 has not been transferred in the records of the trolley. The offending vehicles have been seized from the possession of appellant No. 1/accused, therefore, appellant No. 2 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 appellants 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, has laid down the guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by police. Paras 7 and 17 of the said decision are relevant and 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. 4 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 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." 7. Similar stand has also been 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 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. 8. In the instant case, it is pertinent to mention the most important fact of the case that the offending vehicles was seized on 15.10.2025 and there is no objection to the ownership of appellant No. 2. He has a right to raise any other grounds and also reserving to submit all relevant documents and 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 appellant No. 2, who is claiming himself to be the owner of the said vehicle, so that he can use it and the said vehicle does not become junk after some time. It is also pertinent to mention here that in this case, it is found that the said vehicle is left for natural decay for a long period of time and no substantive action has been taken and the said vehicle is still left for irreparable damages. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by 5 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 08.12.2025, passed by the Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 19557/Sessions Judge, Bilasppur, in Special Case (Mines and Minerals) No. 30/2025 is hereby set aside. 9. In view of the above, it is directed that the said vehicles be immediately released in favour of appellant No. 2 as interim custody on the following condition, and the trial Court may impose any other condition(s) on appellant No. 2 while releasing the offending vehicles. • After receiving the trolley in Supurdnama, Brijesh Singh shall get the said vehicle transferred in his name in the RTO within two months and inform the concerned Court accordingly. 10. With the aforesaid observation/directions, the present petition is allowed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.