1 2026:CGHC:13947 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3573 of 2025 1 - Subhra Singh Tomar W/o Virendra Singh Tomar Aged About 41 Years R/o Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward No. 61, Sai Villa, Colony Bhatagaon, Raipur, Police Station Purani Basti, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhavna Singh Tomar W/o Rohit Singh Tomar Aged About 30 Years R/o Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward No. 61, Sai Villa, Colony Bhatagaon, Raipur, Police Station Purani Basti, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station, Purani Basti, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 24.03.2026 1. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, has been filed against the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.03.27 16:01:51 +0530 2 learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, District Raipur (C.G.) in S.T No. 318/2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 497 of BNSS for grant of interim custody of the seized vehicle Mahindra Thar and 3 mobile phones has been rejected. 2. The case, in nutshell, is that the petitioners along with co- accused were involved in money lending without requisite license, charging exorbitant interest, and acquiring properties through coercion and deceit. It is alleged that the accused acquired properties, including seized assets, through criminal activities. Consequent to a report lodged in this regard, FIR was registered as Crime No. 230/2025 at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur (CG) for the offence under Sections 308(2), 111(1) of BNS and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937. 3. During the investigation of the aforementioned crime, the Police seized a Red Mahindra Thar (bearing registration No. CG 04 PA 0017) and two Samsung smartphones belonging to Petitioner No. 2, Bhavna Singh Tomar, along with one iPhone 13 Pro Max belonging to Petitioner No. 1, Subhra Singh Tomar. The petitioners subsequently moved an application for the release of the vehicle and the three mobile phones on Supurdnama. However, the said application was rejected by the 2nd Additional Sessions 3 Judge, Raipur, vide order dated 16.10.2025, leading to the filing of this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.2 Bhavna Singh Tomar is the registered owner of the seized vehicle Red Mahindra Thar and two mobile phones while petitioner No.1 Subhra Singh Tomar is the owner of one iPhone. As the petitioners possess all valid and effective documents for the said vehicle and articles, they are entitled to their release on Supurdnama. He further submits that the seized vehicle and mobiles are kept for a long time idle in the police station, there is danger of the vehicle being damaged by vagaries of weather and no useful purpose would be served by detaining the vehicle and mobiles in the police station till the trial is concluded. Therefore, He prayed that the seized vehicle and mobile phones may be released on Supurdnama. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners have refused to disclose the passwords for the mobile phones, which contain important evidence related to the case and were used in the commission of the alleged crime. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection. 4 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, in para 7 and 17 has laid down guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by police. For ready reference, the relevant portion is reproduced 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 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 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 Supreme Court has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the Police Station in 5 open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of whether conditions for a long period. 9. Recently in the matter of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can proved that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner’s knowledge and has held in para 25 as under:- 25. Upon a reading of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view that the seized vehicles can be confiscated by the trial court only on conclusion of the trial when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. Further, even where the court is of the view that the vehicle is liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity of hearing to the person who may claim any right to the seized vehicle before passing an order of confiscation. However, the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner's knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the seized vehicle by the accused person. 10. In the instant case, petitioner No.2 Bhavna Singh Tomar is the registered owner of the seized vehicle Mahindra Thar. The vehicle was seized from petitioner No.1 Subhra Singh Tomar who is the sister-in-law (Jethani) of petitioner No.2. It is noted that the husband of petitioner No.2, Rohit Singh Tomar, is also a co-accused in the matter. The petitioners are accused in this case and now they are on bail. The trial Court has rejected the Supurdnama application of the 6 petitioners against which the present petition has been filed. 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 petitioner No.2, who is claiming herself to be the owner of the vehicle, so that she 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. 11. Taking into consideration the entire 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 impugned order dated 16.10.2025, passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, District Raipur (C.G.) in S.T. No.318/2025, is hereby set aside only regarding the Mahindra Thar. 12. It is directed that the vehicle, Mahindra Thar bearing registration No. CG 04 PA 0017, be released in favour of Petitioner No. 2, Bhavna Singh Tomar, as an interim custody subject to her furnishing a Supurdnama in the sum of 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) ₹ and a Bank 7 Guarantee of 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) ₹ to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court. Furthermore, the Trial Court would be at liberty to impose such other proper and reasonable conditions as it may deem necessary to ensure the production of the vehicle, if required, during the trial. 13. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for release of the three mobile phones on Supurdnama is hereby rejected as they are subject matter of evidence. 14. With the aforesaid direction/observations, the present petition stands partly allowed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai