-1- CGHC010188222026 2026:CGHC:39879 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1375 of 2026 Sumit Kumar S/o Karamveer Aged About 37 Years R/o- Village Khidisath, Tahsil- Sapla, P.S. IMT, District- Rohtak Haryana- 124021 (Wrongly Mentioned As Amit In The Impugned Order) ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Kotwali Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 11/09/2026 1. By this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, petitioner has questioned the legality and sustainability of the order dated 15.04.2026 passed in Sessions Trial No.47 of 2026 whereby the application for Suprdnama of the vehicle - Baleno bearing registration No. HR-12- AY 4753 was rejected. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.09.15 15:30:16 +0530 -2- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had purchased the vehicle in Haryana and he was handed over the vehicle after providing him temporary registration number i.e. T- 1125- HR- 5651 -DB. By allotting temporary registration number petitioner was informed that now a days High Security Registration Plate (HSRP) is to be issued and for which period of one week is required and, therefore, after purchase of vehicle, petitioner has been provided and handed over vehicle with temporary registration number. Copy of temporary registration number is enclosed alogn with this petition. He submits that while the vehicle was being taken to Ambikapur by one of his friend, it was seized in connection with Crime No. 884 of 2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 296(B), 351(3), 115(2), 191(3), 111(2) (b) and 324(4) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Petitioner thereafter has filed an application for supurdnama (custody) of the vehicle before the trial Court along with copy of permanent registration certificate issued to petitioner. However, the application was rejected, only observing that registration number of vehicle as mentioned in registration certificate is different than that of number which is mentioned in number plate of the vehicle seized by the police. From perusal of the vehicle number which is mentioned in the impugned order as affixed to the vehicle at the time of its seizure, it is apparent that such number is not the permanent registration number allotted by the Registering Authority in any of the State. Submission made by learned counsel -3- for the applicant/petitioner explaining said aspect was not considered by the trial Court, hence, impugned order be set aside and application for suprdnana be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner/applicant and submits that argument which is raised by learned counsel for the petitioner based on the documents at page No.17 (temporary certificate of registration) and page No.18 (permanent certificate of registration) appears to have not raised before learned trial Court and therefore it cannot be said that there is any error on the part of Court below in dismissing the application for supurdnana. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material available on record, including the documents annexed with the petition. 5. Learned Trial Court declined to release the vehicle primarily on the ground of the discrepancy between the registration number mentioned in the permanent Registration Certificate and the number displayed on the number plate of the vehicle at the time of its seizure. 6. In support of the averments made in the petition, the petitioner has placed on record copy of the invoice relating to purchase of Baleno vehicle issued in his name, copy of Temporary Registration Certificate showing the registration number as T-1125-HR-5651- -4- DB, and a copy of the permanent Registration Certificate subsequently issued in favour of the petitioner bearing registration No. HR-12-AY-4753. 7. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, at the time of purchase and delivery of vehicle, it was being operated under the temporary registration number and that, subsequently, the competent Registering Authority allotted permanent registration number HR- 12-AY-4753. 8. In the facts of the present case, merely because the vehicle was found displaying a temporary registration number at the time of its seizure, whereas the permanent Registration Certificate subsequently issued by the competent authority bears a different, permanent registration number, cannot, by itself, constitute a sufficient ground to deny custody of the vehicle to its registered owner, particularly when the identity of the vehicle and the petitioner's claim of ownership are otherwise supported by the documents placed on record. 9. 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 -5- CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: 1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; 2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, 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 the property in detail; and 4. 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. x x x x x x 17. 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.” 10. Similar view 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized -6- vehicle in the Police Station in open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of weather conditions for a long period. 11.In the present case, there is no other compelling circumstance warranting rejection of the petitioner's application for release of the seized vehicle on interim custody. It is also a matter of common experience that seized vehicles often remain parked for prolonged periods, even after orders relating to confiscation have been passed, and in some cases, despite the passage of two or three years, no substantive action is taken and the vehicles continue to remain in a stationary condition, resulting in their deterioration. 12.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, particularly the undisputed fact that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the seized vehicle to remain in police custody for an indefinite period. 13.Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the vehicle- Baleno bearing registration No. HR-12-AY-4753, deserves to be released on supurdnama in favour of the petitioner, subject to appropriate conditions. 14.Consequently, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is -7- allowed. The impugned order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja, is hereby set aside. The seized vehicle, namely, Baleno bearing registration No. HR-12-AY-4753, shall be released on supurdnama in favour of the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: “(i) Before release of the vehicle, documents relating to its ownership shall be duly verified and a proper panchnama of the vehicle shall be prepared. (ii) Photographs of the vehicle shall be taken and placed on record. The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking/bond that the vehicle shall be produced before the Court as and when required. (iii) The petitioner shall give an undertaking that the vehicle will be maintained in good condition and shall not be transferred to any other person. (iv) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) with an equivalent solvent surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Court before release of the vehicle. Sd/----/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen