Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam) decided on
Case Details
1 A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.07.30 11:12:01 +0530 2025:CGHC:35967 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2062 of 2025 Jasvinder Singh Chhabra S/o Mahendra Singh Chhabra Aged About 42 Years R/o Flat No. A/101, Apollo Road, Amb Park, Lingiyadih Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (This petition is not preferred through Power of Attorney, therefore the details of Power of Attorney is not mentioned) ... Petitioner versus 1 Collector Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer Excise Circle No. 3 Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) …. Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 24/07/2025 1. This petition is filed against the order dated 13.06.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No. 63/2025 whereby the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G) affirmed the order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Excise Case No.20/B-94/2024-205. 2. The offending vehicle bearing Regn. No.CG 10 BK 0065 owned by the 2 petitioner was seized by Excise Authorities from accused Rushal Singh Hora while transporting 5.25 litres of liquor and the accused has been arrested on 24.01.2025 and thereafter, he was released on regular bail. 3. The petitioner who is owner of the vehicle moved an application for releasing the said vehicle on Supurdnama before before respondent no.1, which has been rejected by order dated 17.03.2025. The said order dated 17.03.2025 was under challenge in Revision which also came to be dismissed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is vehicle’s owner and is not accused of committing the offence and on account of a family programme in the house of his nephew Rushal Singh Hora, the vehicle was given to him to meet the requirement of family programme. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No.87/2025 (Bishwajit Dey Vs. The State of Assam) decided on 07.01.2025 and submits if the vehicle in the present case is kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose, therefore, the orders passed by the revisional Court as also the collector cannot be sustained in law and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, he prays a direction to the respondent no.1 to release the vehicle to the petitioner on Supurdnama. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the offending vehicle was involved in transporting the illicit liquor and opposes the prayer for releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama. 7. In the instant case, the collector rejected the application for grant of Supurdnama on the basis of report given by the Assistant Commissioner Excise Bilaspur that if the vehicle is released, there is a possibility of accused committing a crime again by transporting liquor or other intoxicants. The said order of the collector was affirmed by Revisional Court. 8. It is evident from the record that the petitioner is vehicle owner and is not accused. The vehicle was seized on 25.01.2025 while transporting 5.25 litres of liquor by accused Rushal Singh, for which, Crime No.174/2025 was registered against him by Excise Officer, Bilaspur, for the offence u/s 34(2), 34(1), 59(A) of Excise Act, 1915. This fact also remains 3 that even the illicit liquor was seized from the accused and not from the owner of the vehicle. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (200) 10 SCC 283 held that it is no use to keep such seized vehicles at Police station for a long period and it is open to the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking a bond and a guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time. 10. Further in a recent reportable decision rendered in Bishwajit Dey versus The state of Assam, Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2025, decided on 07.01.2025, Hon’ble the supreme Court held thus : “34. This Court is also of the view that if the vehicle in the present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This Court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the Vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce. 35. On the contrary, if the vehicle in question is released, it would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able to earn his livelihood), to the bank/financier (who would be repaid the loan disbursed by it) and to the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be available for transportation of goods). Conclusion 36. Consequently, the present Criminal Appeal is allowed with directions to the trial Court to release the vehicle in question in the interim on superdari after preparing a video and still photographs of the vehicle and after obtaining all information/documents necessary for identification of the vehicle, which shall be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the same. Further, the appellant shall not sell or part with the ownership of the Vehicle till conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an undertaking to the trial court that he shall surrender the vehicle within one week of being so directed and/or pay the value of the vehicle (determined according to Income Tax Law on the date of its release), if so ultimately directed by the Court.” 11. Now coming to retaining the vehicle in custody, it is matter of 4 common knowledge or experience that as and when the vehicle is seized and kept in police station, not only do they occupy substantial space in police station, but upon being kept in open place are also prone to fast natural decay on account of whether conditions. That apart, several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicle are either gets junked so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road. Therefore, no purpose will be served to keep the vehicle in police custody for a long time as it will turn junk and also occupy the substantial place of police station. Hence, the rejection of application for interim custody cannot be allowed to sustain. 12.
Decision
In view of the above discussion and following the case law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases Sunderbhai Desai (Supra) and Bishwajit Dey (Supra), I am inclined to direct that the custody of the vehicle bearing Regn.No. C.G.10/BK-0065 be handed over to the petitioner by way of interim measures. 13. In the result, the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge and the Collector are set aside and the petition is allowed. It is directed that till the disposal of criminal case, the interim custody of the vehicle Toyoto Hy- rider Urban Cruiser bearing Regn.No. C.G.10/BK-0065 be handed over to the petitioner subject to proper conditions to be imposed by the trial Court. Rao Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge