IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.108 of 2026 Sarthak Parija … Petitioner Mr. P. Beura, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa …. Opposite Party Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 17.04.2026 05. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred assailing the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Chandikhole in CMC No.08 of 2025 arising out of C.T(Sessions) Case No.323 of 2025 in connection with Balichandrapur P.S. Case No.512 of 2024, under Section 303(2) of BNS, whereby the prayer of the Petitioner for release of his vehicle i.e. Mahindra Bolero Pick Up vehicle bearing Registration No. OD 05 BL 0416 and bearing Engine No. TNN1L20859 and Chasis No. MAIZU2TNKN10253 was rejected, inter alia, on the ground that the vehicle in question was used for the conveyance and in transporting of alleged stolen materials. 3. It is apt to note that the Petitioner is facing trial in connection with C.T (Sessions) No.323 of 2025 arising out of Balichandrapur P.S. Case No.512 of 2024, under Section 303(2) of BNS. 4. This Court by order dated 23.02.2026, requested the learned counsel for the State to obtain instruction as to whether the vehicle in question was involved in any other case. 5. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed by the I.O stating that the vehicle in question was also involved in commission of offence in Balichandrapur P.S. Case No.34 of 2025, under Sections 310(4)/310(5)/317(3)/317(4) and charge sheet has been filed on 30.06.2025. Referring to the same learned Public Prosecutor submits that allowing the prayer for release of the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner, taking into account his conduct, would amount to paying premium to indulge in offences. Hence, the same ought not to be granted and referring to the order of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 on which much reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the said judgment does not envisage that the vehicle which is admittedly involved in the commission of similar offences, ought to be released. 6. On a close scrutiny of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), it is clear that the Apex Court has said that detaining the vehicle would not serve any purpose though obviously the same cannot have any general application bereft of the nature of allegations. 7. True no doubt, that the vehicle in question is stated to be involved in another P.S. Case apart from the case at hand i.e. Balichandrapur P.S. Case No.512 of 2024. It is stated that the vehicle was seized on 05.02.2025 and judicial notice can be taken of the fact that being exposed to vagaries of nature, the value of vehicle will be depleting. 8. Considering the rival submissions in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), this Court is persuaded to hold that the interest of justice would be subserved, if the Petitioner is directed to deposit a cash security to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- which in the opinion of this Court would act as deterrent. 9. Accordingly, it is directed that on deposit of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, the vehicle in question shall be released in favour of the Petitioner. Further conditions shall be stipulated by the learned Trial Court. The amount so deposited shall be kept in an interest bearing account subject to final outcome of the trial. 10. It is made clear that the order passed herein shall not in any prejudice the Court while dealing with the Balichandrapur P.S. Case No.34 of 2025, which is pending against the Petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the CRLREV stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Soumya Designation: Jr. Stenographer