p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 101 of 2026 Animesh Mandal …. Petitioner Mr. K. Gaya, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH DATE OF HEARING AND ORDER: 03.02.2026 V. Narasingh, J. 1. Heard Mr. Gaya, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred assailing the order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned J.M.F.C, Motu in Misc. Case No.46 of 2026 arising out of OIC Excise Station Kalimela P.R Case No.03 of 2025-26 whereby the prayer of the Petitioner for release of his vehicle (BOLERO Pik-Up FB PS l.7t XI bearing Regd. No.OD-30-E-4858) stated to be involved in an offence under Section 52(a) of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 in 2(a) C.C. Case No.36 of 2025 arising out of OIC Excise Station Kalimela P.R Case No.03 of 2025-26 has been rejected. p. 2 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there is no dispute that the Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle (BOLERO Pik-Up FB PS l.7t XI bearing Regd. No.OD-30-E-4858). Asserting that the said vehicle, allegedly involved in the aforementioned P.R. case under Section 52(a) of the Odisha Excise Act, is being exposed to vagaries of nature and relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 290, the Petitioner seeks release of his vehicle. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand opposes such prayer and submits that as borne out from the order of the learned Magistrate that the confiscation proceeding has already been initiated before the competent authority and as such, the application has been rightly rejected. 5. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the Apex Court while dealing with corresponding provision of Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. held thus; “……………… it is of no use to keep such seized vehicle at the police stations for a long period. xxx xxx xxx” 6. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is persuaded to hold that interest of justice would be subserved, if the vehicle in question as an interim p. 3 measure is released in favour of the Petitioner on certain terms and conditions. 7. Accordingly, it is directed that the seized vehicle (BOLERO Pik-Up FB PS l.7t XI bearing Regd. No.OD-30-E-4858) shall be released in favour of the Petitioner, on his satisfying the learned Court in seisin that he is the registered owner of the said vehicle and on such terms and condition as deemed just and proper till disposal of 2(a) C.C. Case No.36 of 2025 by the learned Court in seisin including the following terms, that the Petitioner shall not; i. allow the vehicle to be utilized in commission of any offence and; ii. change the ownership of the vehicle and; iii. change the nature of vehicle to affect its identity. And, shall produce the same before the learned Court in seisin as and when directed. 8. Accordingly, the CRLREV stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 3rd February, 2026/Ayesha