IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1006 of 2026 Shrinibas Samantary @ Srinibas Samantaray .... Petitioner(s) Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 06.04.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC seeking a prayer to quash the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in Criminal Revision No.01/10 of 2025-2024 vide Annexure-2 and order dated 23.10.2024 passed in C.M.C. No.66 of 2024 passed by the learned JMFC, Ranpur under Annexure-1. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle i.e. Hero Glamour bearing Registration No. OR-02BR-2305 having engine Number JA06EFBGH00267, Chassis No. MBLJA06EUBGH00274. The Petitioner has filed an application under Section 503 of the BNS which has been registered as C.M.C No. 66 of 2024 before the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur with a prayer to release the Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 08-Apr-2026 11:38:55 Signature Not Verified 2 vehicle in question in his favour. But, the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur vide order dated 23.10.2024 rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2024 passed in C.M.C. No.66 of 2024 under Annexure-1, the Petitioner approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in Criminal Revision No.01/10 of 2025/2024. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh vide order dated 04.07.2025 rejected the revision application by affirming the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat1. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: - “The issue where confiscation proceedings in relation to a vehicle are pending under Section 72 of the Excise Act on the basis of a crime registered under the said Act, the Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. to release a seized vehicle pending investigation or trial notwithstanding the pendency of confiscation proceedings before the Collector was dealt with by Allahabad High Court in Nand Vs. State of U.P 2 where it was held: “7.I think it is not proper to allow the truck to be damaged by remaining stationed at police station. Admittedly, the ownership of the truck is not disputed. The State of Uttar Pradesh does not 1 2002(10)SCC 283 2 1997(1) AWC 41 Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 08-Apr-2026 11:38:55 Signature Not Verified 3 claim its ownership. Therefore, I think it will be proper and in the larger interest of public as well as the revisionist that the revisionist gives a Bank guarantee of Rs. 2 lakhs before the C.J.M., Kanpur Dehat and files a bond that he shall be producing the truck as and when needed by the criminal courts or the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, and he shall not make any changes nor any variation in the truck.” 6. This Court had an occasion earlier to decide the similar issue involved in this case in the case of Ratnakar Behera-versus-State of Odisha3. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: - “11. Having considered the matter in the aforesaid perspective and guided by the precedents cited hereinabove, this Court sets aside the order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Criminal Revision No.11 of 2019 and allows the prayer of the Petitioner on the following conditions: 1. The petitioner is directed to make the vehicle available as and when required during investigation of the case and thereafter in the court concerned. 2. The petitioner is directed not to make any changes or any variation to the vehicle during the pendency of the trial in the court concerned. 12. However, it is made clear that any of the observation made hereinabove with respect to the fact of the case, shall not come in the way or prejudicially affect the fair trial of the present case.” 3 2020(II) OLR-767 Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 08-Apr-2026 11:38:55 Signature Not Verified 4 7. He further contends that the Petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in the instant case. Due to exposure of the vehicle in sun and rain, its condition is deteriorating day by day. In view of the above, he prays for release of the vehicle in question. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and on going through the averments made in this petition, this Court is inclined to quash the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in Criminal Revision No.01/10 of 2025-2024 vide Annexure-2 and the order dated 23.10.2024 passed in C.M.C. No.66 of 2024 passed by the learned JMFC, Ranpur under Annexure-1. 9. The learned JMFC, Ranpur is directed to release the above-said seized vehicle in question in the zima of the petitioner subject to the conditions that the petitioner shall; i. Undertake not to change the appearance or colour of the seized vehicle; ii. Also undertake to ensure that the vehicle is not used for any illegal purpose.; iii. Undertake to produce the vehicle as and when required by the court; and iv. Obtain comprehensive insurance policy for the seized vehicle every year. Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 08-Apr-2026 11:38:55 5 10. The CRLMC stands disposed of, accordingly. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Gitanjali