1 2026:CGHC:15739-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 182 of 2026 Rajkumar Gupta S/o Ishwari Prasad Gupta Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Village Pailwah, Op Pailwah, District Shahdol (M.P.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Superintendent Of Police District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Station House Officer Police Station Birra, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Jain Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07/04/2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.08 10:59:10 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- "10.1 That, it is Humble prayed that your lordship please directed to respondent No.2 to handed over the custody of the vehicle Tata Tigor bearing registration No. MP18-CA 0562, which was seized in connection with crime No. 27/2023 offence punishable U/s 20(B) (ii) (B) of N.D.P.S. registered at police station Birra District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), to the petitioner. 10.2 Cost of the litigation/petition be allowed. 10.3 Any other relief(s) may be given to the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. " 3. Brief facts of the case are that the vehicle of the petitioner, i.e., Tata Tigor bearing registration No. MP18-CA-0562, which was seized in connection with Crime No. 27/2023 registered at Police Station Birra, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for an offence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. Upon completion of investigation, the final report was submitted before the Court of the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Janjgir-Champa, and after trial, the accused persons were acquitted vide judgment dated 14-07-2025 in NDPS Case No. 06/2023. While acquitting the accused, the learned trial Court directed that the seized vehicle, which is already ordered for its interim custody, shall be made absolute, subject to any order of the appellate Court, if an appeal is preferred. Although the petitioner had earlier moved an 3 application for interim custody which was allowed on 20-12-2024, the vehicle remained in the police station due to non-furnishing of bonds. As no appeal has been preferred by the State against the acquittal, the judgment has attained finality; however, despite approaching the S.H.O., Police Station Birra, the petitioner has been denied custody of the vehicle, which continues to be illegally retained by the authorities, necessitating the filing of the present petition seeking release of the vehicle. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Janjgir-Champa, while acquitting the accused persons, has not passed any order of confiscation of the vehicle and has rather directed for interim custody of the same, thereby leaving no authority with the respondents to continue its detention. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. MP18-CA 0562, and in absence of any appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal, the judgment has attained finality, binding the respondents to release the vehicle forthwith. Merely because the petitioner could not earlier furnish bonds pursuant to the interim custody order during trial, the respondents cannot indefinitely retain the vehicle without any subsisting judicial order. Thus, the continued detention of the vehicle by respondent No. 2 is wholly without authority of law, arbitrary and unsustainable, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. 4 5. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the present petition is misconceived and not maintainable, as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the competent trial Court for seeking release of the vehicle in accordance with law. It is further submitted that although the learned Special Judge has passed an order regarding interim custody, the petitioner admittedly failed to comply with the conditions of the said order by not furnishing the requisite bonds, and therefore cannot claim any equitable relief at this stage. Hence, no interference is warranted, and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have carefully perused the documents, annexures, and records placed on file along with the writ petition. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it observed that the petitioner has failed to establish any legal right warranting interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. It is an admitted position that during the pendency of the trial, the petitioner had already been granted the benefit of interim custody of the vehicle by the learned Special Judge, however, the petitioner did not comply with the conditions imposed therein, particularly the furnishing of requisite bonds, due to which the vehicle continued to remain in police custody. The petitioner, having failed to avail the remedy granted by the competent Court, cannot now seek to bypass the statutory procedure and invoke 5 writ jurisdiction for the same relief. It is further submitted that the mere acquittal of the accused persons does not ipso facto entitle the petitioner to automatic release of the seized property, especially in matters arising under the NDPS Act, where the procedure relating to custody, disposal and possible confiscation of property is governed by specific statutory provisions and requires due compliance and appropriate orders from the competent Court. 8. It is also pertinent to submit that the petitioner has an efficacious and adequate alternative remedy available before the trial Court to seek appropriate orders for release of the vehicle by complying with the necessary formalities, and without exhausting such remedy, the present petition is premature and not maintainable. The respondents have not acted arbitrarily or illegally, rather, the continued custody of the vehicle is a consequence of the petitioner’s own inaction and non-compliance with judicial directions. 9. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika