p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.649 of 2026 Barth Santa @ Bharat Santa …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Pramod Chandra Sejpada, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Raj Bhushan Dash, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 04. ORDER 15.04.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard. 3. In filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioner claiming himself to be the registered owner of the vehicle in question bearing registration No.OD-10-J-9629 which is seized for being used in illegal transportation of ID liquor, has also sought for a direction from this Court to the authority concerned for releasing the said vehicle in his zima which is seized in connection with 2(a)CC Case No.379/2025 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Jeypore. 4. Heard. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the above noted vehicle has been parked at an open space, the condition of the said vehicle is going to be Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-Apr-2026 18:07:22 Signature Not Verified p. 2 deteriorated due to direct exposure to the sun and rain. He, accordingly, prays for a direction for release of the said vehicle. In order to strengthen the case of the Petitioner, he also relies on a decision of this Court in the case of Ratnakar Behera Vrs. State of Odisha 1. 6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the State, on instruction, submits that a Confiscation Proceeding pertaining to the above noted vehicle has already been started. He, in the process, submits that releasing the said seized vehicle at this stage may hamper the process of completion of the Confiscation Proceeding. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this CRLMC. 7. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and since a confiscation proceeding pertaining to the above noted vehicle at the instance of the Petitioner has already been started, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner should participate in the said confiscation proceeding. This Court, therefore, directs the Petitioner to participate in the said confiscation proceeding and file objection which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. 8. Looking to the decision relied on by the Petitioner cited supra, this Court finds that facts of the said case is different from the present lis. Therefore, the said 1 2020(II)OLR 767 in CRLMC No.985 of 2020 Designation: Personal Assistant p. 3 decision relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is not applicable to the present case. 9. This CRLMC is, accordingly, dismissed. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta Designation: Personal Assistant