p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 871 of 2026 Sanjay Kumar Das ..…... Petitioner (s) Mr. Dipak Ranjan Mishra, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha & Anr. ……. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 13.07.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR registered in Khaira P.S. Case No.384 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. No.1934 of 2025, pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Soro. The Petitioner has further prayed for a direction to Opposite Party No.3 to release the seized vehicle bearing Registration No. OD01G-5666. 3. Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, although the petitioner is not an accused in connection with Khariar P.S. Case No.384 of 2025, registered under 281/125(a), 125(b) of BNS. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:08:03 Signature Not Verified p. 2 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner is the rightful owner of the vehicle and relies on it as his sole means of livelihood. It is emphasized that the vehicle has been detained at Khariar P.S., for more than one years, exposed to natural elements, resulting in potential deterioration. 6. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and a thorough examination of the materials on record, it is evident that the petitioner is the rightful registered owner of the seized vehicle. The said vehicle has remained in the custody of the Khariar P.S. for more than one years, exposed to the harsh elements of nature, including sun, rain, and fluctuating weather conditions, thereby subjecting it to progressive deterioration and inevitable depreciation. A vehicle, by its very nature, is meant for active use and mobility, and its prolonged immobilization in official custody serves no meaningful legal or practical purpose. 7. If left unattended for an indefinite period, the vehicle is bound to suffer structural damage, mechanical wear, and a significant reduction in its functional and economic value, rendering it unfit for future use. The law does not mandate the indefinite retention of property when its custody does not serve the ends of justice. Instead, the guiding principle has always been that seized property should be safeguarded and preserved, rather than unnecessarily wasted. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:08:03 Signature Not Verified p. 3 8. A wealth of judicial precedents has consistently affirmed that the prolonged retention of seized vehicles in police custody serves no practical purpose and instead leads to their gradual deterioration and depreciation. In this regard, the Supreme Court, in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat1, emphatically held as follows: “In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations 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.” 9. Likewise, in the recent case of Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam2, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a vehicle can be retained in police custody for an extended period during the pendency of trial. The Court held as follows: “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.” 1 (2002) 10 SCC 283. 2 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13370/2024. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:08:03 Signature Not Verified p. 4 10. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of directing the Opposite Party No.3 to release the above seized vehicle in the zima of the Petitioner subject to the conditions that: (i) The Petitioner shall produce the original registration certificate, insurance paper before the concerned Police Station which shall be verified properly and true attested copies thereof shall be retained by the I.O/IIC of the concerned Police Station.; (ii) The Petitioner shall not change the colour or any part of the engine and chassis number of the vehicle; (iii) The Petitioner shall furnish two photographs of the vehicle before taking delivery of the same; (iv) The Petitioner shall not transfer the ownership of the vehicle in favour of any other person; (v) The Petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the Court as and when called upon; (vi) The Petitioner shall not allow the vehicle to be used in the commission of any offence; and (vii) The Petitioner shall furnish property/cash security of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh only). 11. In case of violation of any of the conditions by the Petitioner, this order shall not be applicable. 12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:08:03 Signature Not Verified p. 5 13. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. 1. 2. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu Designation: P.A.