1 2026:CGHC:15662 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 697 of 2026 Akhil Rao Raghatate S/o Bhaskar Raghatate Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Sai Mandir, Raipura, Tehsil and District- Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent For the petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 06.04.2026 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 10.09.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No. 325/2025 whereby the learned IV ASJ Raipur (C.G) affirmed the order of JMFC, Raipur dated 14.07.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 1184/2025 rejecting the application for handing over the interim custody of the vehicle. 2. The offending Vehicle Maruti Swift Dzire bearing Regn. No. C.G. 04- PT/7888 owned by the petitioner was seized for transporting the illicit liquor by other accused persons without valid documents. The petitioner moved the application for releasing the said vehicle on Supurdnama. The trial Court as also the revisional Court rejected the Supurdnama ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.04.07 17:17:20 +0530 2 application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner holds all valid and effective documents" (RC, insurance, etc.) 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 the 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, therefore, it is prayed that the seized motorcycle 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. The vehicle was seized from other accused persons for transporting illicit liquor. The revisional court held that if the proceedings for confiscation are pending before the Collector, the application for interim custody of the property must also be submitted to the Collector u/s 47-A(2) of the CG Excise Act, consequently, the Court is not authorised to pass an interim custody order and thus rejected the revision affirming the trial Court order. 7. The initiation of confiscation proceedings under Section 47-A(3) of the Excise Act does not absolutely divest the registered owner of the right to seek interim custody of the vehicle, particularly when it is deteriorating while idle at a police station. The courts below have not considered that although Section 47-A(3) of the Act allows the Collector to initiate confiscation, this does not absolutely deprive the owner of interim custody of the vehicle. 8. Considering the over-all facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra) which has been further 3 reiterated in Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2013) 3 SCC 240, I am inclined to set aside the impugned orders passed by the trial Court as also by the Revisional Court and direct the interim release of the vehicle to the petitioner on furnishing Supurdnama. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Revisional Court and the order of the trial Court dated 14.07.2025 are set aside. it is directed that the interim custody of the Vehicle Maruti Swift Dzire bearing No. C.G. 04-PT/7888 be handed over to the petitioner on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as Supurdnama and a Bank Guarantee in sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court and on further conditions to be imposed by the trial Court. 10. However, it is made clear that this order of interim custody shall cease to be effective in the event of confiscation proceedings already decided or upon final disposal of the criminal case. If the confiscation proceeding has already been concluded, the custody of the vehicle shall be subject to the confiscation order. 11. With the aforesaid direction/observations, the present petition stands partly allowed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao