Anuppur, M.P v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:46407 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 941 of 2025 Bachchu Prasad Gupta S/o Sundarlal Aged About 65 Years R/o Village - Piparha, Police Station- Rajendra, District- Anuppur, M.P. ... Applicant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Gourela, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
“7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: 1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; 2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, 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 the property in detail; and 4. 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. x x x x x x 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to -4- 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 view 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 and Bishwajit Dey Vs. The State of Assam reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241, wherein Hon’ble 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 weather conditions for a long period. 8. Perusal of the record would show that applicant has filed a copy of vehicle registration certificate. There is no other compelling reason warranting rejection of application for release of the seized vehicle under interim custody of the applicant. It is also pertinent to mention here that in many cases, it is found that vehicles are standing for long period even after confiscation order has been passed and despite 2-3 years, no substantive action has been taken and the vehicle is still standing in stationed condition. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering submissions made by counsel for parties, the undisputed fact that the applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, this Court is of -5- the opinion that no useful purpose would be served to keep the seized vehicle in the police custody and it would be appropriate to release the seized vehicle Brezza No. MP 65 ZB 6852 on Supurdnama in favour of applicant. 10.Accordingly, this revision application is allowed. Impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS) , Bilaspur is hereby set aside. The seized vehicle is directed to be released on supurdnama in favour of applicant on the following conditions:- (i) Before release of the vehicle, the documents pertaining to ownership of the said vehicle be verified and proper Panchnama of the vehicle be made. (ii) Photographs and Video Clips of the vehicle should be taken and bond should also be executed by applicant that vehicle would be produced as and when required and he will not sell the vehicle or any part of it during pendency of the case. (iii) Proper security i.e. personal bond of Rs. 7,00,000/- (seven lakhs) and equivalent surety be obtained from the applicant before release of vehicle . 11. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this revision is allowed. (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Sd/----/-/- Praveen
Arguments
: Ms. Maya Chaturvijani, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 10/09/2025 1. This revision application under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS, has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 04.07.2025 passed in Special Sessions Case (NDPS) No. 13 of 2025 by learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby application filed by the applicant for release of his vehicle- Brezza bearing registration No. MP -65- ZB- 6852 on supurdnama has been dismissed. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.09.15 17:29:08 +0530 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that, on secret information received, officials of the concerned police station seized 106 kg -2- cannabis from vehicle Brezza bearing registration No. MP-65 -ZB- 6852 which was being transported by accused persons. During course of investigation, applicant was found to be registered owner of the vehicle and his vehicle has been seized by Police Station – Gourela. 3. Learned counsel for applicant would submit that learned Special Court has committed error by rejecting the application of applicant seeking release of the vehicle under supurdnama as he is registered owner of vehicle. He further submits that the seized vehicle- Brezza is lying idle at Police Station and if the same is not allowed to be used for a longer time, it is likely to damage or rust and no useful purpose is going to be served in keeping the vehicle idle with the police, open to sky under direct sunlight, rather if the applicant is permitted to use the seized vehicle it would be in running condition. Therefore, he prays for release of said seized car/vehicle on supurdnama in favour of applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with this revision petition. 6. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that applicant is the registered owner of vehicle Brezza bearing registration No. MP-65 -ZB-6852 which was seized by the police in connection with the -3- offence punishable under the NDPS Act. He is not offender. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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 ready reference, the relevant portion is reproduced below:-