1 2026:CGHC:7931 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 230 of 2026 1 - Satyam Gupta S/o Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) Now R/o Ward No. 15 Patel Nagar Khariyar Road, P.S. Jonk, Tehsil And District Nuapada (Orrisa). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of C.G. Through Station House Officer, Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Respondent For the petitioner : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy.G.A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 12/02/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. Admit. 3. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 21.01.2026, record from the concerned Court has been received. 4. This petition u/s 528 of BNSS, 2023 and Section 51 of NDPS, 1985 is filed against the order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G), arising out of the order dated 30.04.2024 (as amended/corrected on 19.12.2024) whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First class, Bagbahra, District-Mahasamund (C.G.), rejected the application filed by the petitioner for releasing the seized vehicle Maruti Ertiga bearing Regn. No. C.G.04 HD 4798. 2 5. Brief facts of the case are that the vehicle Maruti Ertiga bearing Regn. No. C.G.04 HD 4798 owned by the petitioner was seized in connection with the Crime No.42/2024 registered at Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence u/s 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The accused persons have used the said offending vehicle for illegal transportation of 20 packets of Nitrazepam Tablet (Nitrosun 10) (20 tablets in one packet) i.e., 400 tablets and upon raid, the said quantity of Nitrazepam tablets (Nitrosun 10) was seized from the possession of accused. 6. The petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle, moved an application for releasing the said vehicle on Supurdnama, which was rejected by the JMFC, Mahasamund (C.G.), vide the impugned order dated 30.04.2024. Against this, the petitioner filed a revision, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund-I (C.G.), affirming the trial Court's order. Hence this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is vehicle’s owner and is not accused of committing the offence. He placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No.87/2025 (Bishwajit Dey Vs. The State of Assam) decided on 07.01.2025 and submits if the vehicle in the present case is kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose, therefore, the orders passed by the Courts cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, he prays a direction to the respondent release the vehicle to the petitioner on Supurdnama. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the offending vehicle was involved in transporting the Nitrazepam Tablets (Nitrosun 10) and opposes the prayer for releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama. 9. It is evident from the record that the petitioner is vehicle’s owner and he is not shown to be an accused. The vehicle was seized on 02.04.2024 while transporting 30 packets of Nitrzepam Tablets (Nitrosun 10). This fact also remains that even the said tablets was seized from the accused and not from 3 the petitioner. 10.So far as retaining the vehicle in police custody is concerned, it is matter of common knowledge or experience that as and when the vehicle is seized and kept in police station, not only do they occupy substantial space in police station, but upon being kept in open place are also prone to fast natural decay on account of whether conditions. That apart, several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicle will get junked so that the vehicles would become unworthy of being driven on road. Therefore, no purpose will be served to keep the vehicle in police custody for a long time as it will turn junk and also occupy the substantial place of police station. 11.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. 12.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 : “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 4 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.” 13. In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Sunderbhai Desai (Supra) and Bishwajit Dey (Supra), the rejection of application for releasing the vehicle on interim custody cannot be allowed to sustain and I am inclined to direct that the interim custody of the vehicle bearing Regn. No. C.G.04 HD 4798 be handed over to the petitioner by way of interim measures. 14. In the result, the impugned orders passed by the learned JMFC as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and the petition is allowed. It is directed that till disposal of the criminal case, the interim custody of the vehicle bearing Regn. No. C.G.04 HD 4798 be handed over to the petitioner subject to proper conditions to be imposed by the trial Court. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.