Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana Gaurela, District
Case Details
1 SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.07.15 12:45:30 +0530 2025:CGHC:32534 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 756 of 2025 Darbaru Baiga S/o Budannu Baiga Aged About 51 Years R/o- Ward No. 6 Village- Patana Kala, Thana- Chachai, Tahsil And District- Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana Gaurela, District- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant For State : :
Legal Reasoning
17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police station for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles." 7. Similar stand has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, reported in 2013 (3) SCC 240, wherein the Supreme Court has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the Police Station in open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of whether conditions for a long period. 8. Recently in the matter of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can proved that the vehicle was 5 used by the accused person without the owner’s knowledge and has held in para 25 as under:- 25. Upon a reading of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view that the seized vehicles can be confiscated by the trial court only on conclusion of the trial when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. Further, even where the court is of the view that the vehicle is liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity of hearing to the person who may claim any right to the seized vehicle before passing an order of confiscation. However, the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner's knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the seized vehicle by the accused person. 9. In this case, it is pertinent to note that the applicant's ownership of the vehicle bearing Registration No. MP18-ZD- 6287 is undisputed. There was no seizure made by the said vehicle and it is also not stated whether this vehicle has been seized in any crime in the past. Furthermore, as stated, the vehicle was used in the crime in question as piloting vehicle. It is also necessary to note that no useful purpose would be served if the said vehicle is allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the said vehicle can be released to the applicant, who is claiming himself to be the owner of the article, so that he can use it and the said vehicle does not become junk after some time. It is also pertinent to mention here that in this case, it is found that the said vehicle is left for natural decay for a long period of time and no substantive action has been taken and the said vehicle is still left for irreparable damages. Considering the facts and 6 circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai (Supra) and Bishwajit Dey (Supra), the instant revision is allowed and the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the learned 4th Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Crime No. 14/2025 is hereby set aside. 10. In view of the above, it is directed that the said vehicle immediately be released in favour of the Applicant as an interim custody on the following condition that the Applicant would furnish a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- with one surety as Supurdnama in the concerned Trial Court, keeping in view that there must not be any alteration in the physical appearance of the said article. It is also pertinent that the said vehicle shall be submitted by the Applicant itself on its own cost, if need so arises. 11. With the aforesaid observation/directions, the present revision is allowed. Shubham Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge
Arguments
Mr. Krishna Kumar Khatri, Advocate Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. The applicant has been preferred this instant case under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. R/w Section 51 of NDPS Act being aggrieved by the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby the 2 learned Judge had rejected the application filed by the applicant for interim custody of seized vehicle. 2. The case in nutshell is that, on 16.01.2025, information was received through an informant that a white Swift Dzire vehicle bearing registration number CG 10-X-9615, was illegally transporting narcotic substance (Ganja) from Balangir, Odisha to Raigarh via Bilaspur-Belgahna, and they were being piloted by Basant Baiga and Hazrat Ali in another vehicle, Brezza car bearing registration number MP18-ZD-6287, heading from Gorela towards Anuppur. Upon receiving this information, a raid was conducted and on the same day, the above-named accused persons were found near village Jobatola, Bhanwarntak Road, Dhampathra, illegally transporting a total of 73.500 kilograms of Ganja in vehicle number CG 10-X-9615, and it was found that they were being piloted by vehicle number MP18-ZD-6287. Accordingly, action was taken against the said accused persons and they were arrested. The applicant is the owner of the said vehicle and Basant Baiga who was being piloted in another vehicle, Brezza car bearing registration number MP18-ZD-6287 is the son of the applicant. The applicant herein had filed an application before the learned trial Court for taking Supurdnama of the said vehicle but the said application was rejected by the learned trial Court. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the registered owner of the seized vehicle (MP18-ZD-6287) and he is having a valid and effective documents required for the 3 said article, therefore, he is entitled for the Supurdnama. He next submits that he was not involved in the crime in question and his vehicle was allegedly used as piloting vehicle by his son Basant Baiga. Neither any seizure has been made by his vehicle nor his vehicle was involved in any crime in past. He further submits that the seized vehicle is kept for a long time idle in the police station, there are 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 car may be released on Supurdnama. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the Applicant and supported the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by counsel for the parties and further considering the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, in para 7 and 17 has laid down guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by police. For Chhateady reference, the relevant portion is reproduced below:- 4 "7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: i. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; ii. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; iii. if proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepare, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of property in detail; and iv. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.