The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 389 of 2022 Prasanta Kumar Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr. Arijeet Mishra , Adv. State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party Ms. Jyoshnamayee Sahoo, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. ORDER 07.02.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In this Criminal Revision Petition (CRLREV), the petitioner challenges the order dated 23.07.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore in Misc. Case No.55 of 2022. The said order, arising from T.R. Case No.16 of 2019, which corresponds to Jeypore Sadar P.S. Case No.62 of 2019, rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for the interim release of his seized vehicle, bearing Registration No. OD-08H-7615. 3. Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the State. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Feb-2025 18:32:14 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, although the petitioner is not an accused in connection with Jeypore Sadar P.S. Case No.62 of 2019, corresponding to T.R. Case Page 1 of 5 No.16 of 2019, registered under Section 20(b)(ii)C of the NDPS Act, the petitioner’s vehicle has been seized on allegations that it was used for the transportation of Ganja. It is further contended that the vehicle had been rented out by the petitioner, and at no point was he aware that it was being used for the transportation of Ganja. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the Petitioner is the rightful owner of the vehicle and relies on it as his sole means of livelihood. It is emphasized that the vehicle has been detained at the Jeypore Sadar P.S., for more than two years, exposed to natural elements, resulting in potential deterioration. Counsel contends that the lower court rejected the application for interim release solely on the ground of ownership, without due consideration of the petitioner’s lack of involvement in the alleged offense. 6. Learned counsel for the State contends that, since the petitioner’s vehicle was allegedly used for the transportation of Ganja, the lower court rightly rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. The State argues that the vehicle's involvement in the offense justifies its continued detention. 7. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Feb-2025 18:32:14 thorough examination of the materials on record, it is evident that the petitioner is the rightful registered owner of the seized vehicle. The said vehicle has remained in the Page 2 of 5 custody of the Jeypore Sadar P.S. for more than two years, exposed to the harsh elements of nature, including sun, rain, and fluctuating weather conditions, thereby subjecting it to progressive deterioration and 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 left unattended for an indefinite period, the 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: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Feb-2025 18:32:14 “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 1 (2002) 10 SCC 283. Page 3 of 5 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.” 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 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Feb-2025 18:32:14 Station.; 2 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13370/2024. Page 4 of 5 (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; (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 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 Murmu (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Feb-2025 18:32:14 Page 5 of 5