The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.84 of 2024 Pruthwiraj Tripathy …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Satya Ranjan Mulia, Adv. -versus- …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC State of Odisha CORAM: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. ORDER 04.03.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In this Criminal Revision (CRLREV), the Revisionist/ Petitioner challenges the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bhawanipatna in Criminal Misc. Case No. 13 of 2023 arising out of 2(a)CC Case No.18/2023. 3. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the Petitioner is not an accused in connection with P.R. No.19/2023-24 dated 16.06.2023 registered for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, the vehicle of the Petitioner bearing registration No.OD-33-AC- 9120 has been seized on allegation of transportation of Ganja. It is further contended that the vehicle in question was rented out by the Petitioner and the Petitioner was unaware of alleged transportation of Ganja in the said vehicle. Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Mar-2025 17:02:18 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner is the rightful owner of the vehicle in question and he relies on the said vehicle to maintain his livelihood. It is emphasized that the vehicle has been detained at the Excise District Mobile Unit, Kalahandi at Bhawanipatna, for more than one year being exposed to natural elements. He further contends that the learned lower court rejected the application for interim release of the vehicle in question solely on the ground of ownership and without considering the Petitioner’s lack of involvement in the alleged offense. 6. Learned counsel for the State contends that since the vehicle of the Petitioner in question was allegedly used for the transportation of Ganja, the learned lower court has rightly rejected the application of the Petitioner under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the State further argues that involvement of the vehicle in the offense justifies its continued detention. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this CRLREV. 7. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and a thorough examination of the materials on record, it is evident that the petitioner is the rightful registered owner of the seized vehicle in question. The said vehicle has been in the custody of the District Mobile, Kalahandi for more than one year being exposed to the harsh elements of nature, including sun and rain and fluctuating weather conditions, thereby subjecting it to progressive deterioration and Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Mar-2025 17:02:18 inevitable depreciation. A vehicle, by its very nature, is meant for active use and mobility, and its prolonged immobilization in official custody serves no meaningful legal or practical purpose. 8. If the vehicle is left unattended for an indefinite period, the said vehicle is bound to suffer structural damage, mechanical wear, and a significant reduction in its functional and economic value, rendering it unfit for future use. The law does not mandate the indefinite retention of property when its custody does not serve the ends of justice. Instead, the guiding principle has always been that seized property should be safeguarded and preserved, rather than unnecessarily wasted. 9. A wealth of judicial precedents has consistently affirmed that the prolonged retention of seized vehicles in police custody serves no practical purpose and instead leads to their gradual deterioration and depreciation. In this regard, the Supreme Court, in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat1, emphatically held as follows: “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 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.” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Mar-2025 17:02:18 1 (2002) 10 SCC 283. Page 3 of 5 10. Likewise, in the recent case of Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam2, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a vehicle can be retained in police custody for an extended period during the pendency of trial. The Court held as follows: “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.” 11. Accordingly, the CRLREV is disposed of directing the court in seisin over the matter to release the above noted seized vehicle in the zima of the Petitioner subject to the conditions that the Petitioner: (i) The Petitioner shall produce the original registration certificate, insurance paper before the concerned Police Station which shall be verified properly and true attested copies thereof shall be retained by the I.O/IIC of the concerned Police Station.; (ii) The Petitioner shall not change the colour or any part of the engine and chassis number of the vehicle; (iii) The Petitioner shall furnish two photographs of the vehicle before taking delivery of the same; Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Mar-2025 17:02:18 2 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13370/2024. Page 4 of 5 (iv) The Petitioner shall not transfer the ownership of the vehicle in favour of any other person; (v) The Petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the concerned Court as and when called upon; (vi) The Petitioner shall not allow the vehicle to be used in the commission of any offence; and (vii) The Petitioner shall furnish property/cash security of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakh only). 12. In case of violation of any of the conditions by the Petitioner, this order shall not be applicable. 13. The CRLREV is accordingly disposed of. 14. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Judge Ayaskanta (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Mar-2025 17:02:18 Page 5 of 5