1 2026:CGHC:15822 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 809 of 2026 Madhudas W/o Shanudas Aged About 49 Years R/o Aamanaka Kukurbeda, Near Bajrang Bali Mandir, Beside Shubham Kirana Store Gali, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, P.S. Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For the petitioner : Mr. Bharatlal Sahu, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Deputy Govt. Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 07.04.2026 1. By this petition filed u/s 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner prays for a direction to quash the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 passed in Criminal Case No. 26/2026 whereby the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Raipur (C.G) rejected the application for handing over the interim custody of the vehicle Activa scooter. 2. The offending Vehicle Activa No. C.G. 04/QD-5883 owned by the petitioner was seized for transporting narcotic ganja of 2.880 Kilograms by her without valid documents. The petitioner moved the application under section 497 of BNSS for releasing the said vehicle as also the touch ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.04.08 18:11:36 +0530 2 screen mobile phone on Supurdnama. The trial Court partly allowed the application by granting the custody of the mobile phone with preserved data and accessories, however, rejected the prayer for grant of interim custody of the vehicle. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner holds all valid and effective documents and since the seized vehicle is not required for daily evidence, keeping it idle serves no judicial purpose and causes unnecessary financial hardship. He relies on a case law reported in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 and submits that if the seized vehicle is kept for a long time idle in Police Station, there is danger of it being damaged by vagaries of weather and no useful purpose would be served by detaining the vehicle in the police station till the trial is concluded. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal background, therefore, looking to the over-all aspects, the seized vehicle may be released on Supurdnama. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and and also went through the material placed on record. 6. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle. She is an accused in this case for the offence under Section 20(B) of NDPS Act. The vehicle was seized from the petitioner. No criminal antecedents are reported against her. The trial court held that if the vehicle is given on Supurdnama, the possibility of vehicle being used again in such a crime cannot be ruled out and rejected interim custody of the vehicle. 7. There is no absolute or specific bar under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, preventing the interim release of vehicles such as a scooty, bike, etc., on supurdnama particularly when it is deteriorating while idle at a police station. 8. Considering the over-all facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that the applicant has no criminal back ground and in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai 3 Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra) which has been further reiterated in Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2013) 3 SCC 240, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court and direct the interim release of the vehicle to the petitioner on furnishing Supurdnama. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the Special Court is set aside and it is directed that the interim custody of the Activa Scooty bearing Regn. No. C.G. 04/Q.D-5883 be handed over to the petitioner on her furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.75,000/-- as Supurdnama with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court and on further conditions to be imposed by the said Court. 10. With the aforesaid direction/observations, the present petition stands partly allowed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao