The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3456 of 2025 Santosh Ray ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Harekrushna Babu State of Odisha -versus- ..... Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 13.10.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Sambalpur in CMA No.145 of 2025, which was confirmed in revision bearing Criminal Revision No.8 of 2025 vide judgment dated 18.07.2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that Petitioner confines his prayer in the present application to the impugned order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Page 1 of 5. Judge, Sambalpur in Criminal Revision No.8 of 2025, which arises out of CMA No.145 of 2025. 5. So far as the order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Criminal Revision No.6 of 2025, learned counsel for the Petitioner does not want to press the same with liberty to file a separate application challenging the aforesaid order passed in Criminal Revision No.6 of 2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Samablpur. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in course of his argument, submitted that on the basis of the F.I.R. in Ainthapalli P.S. Case No.116 dated 20.04.2025, a case was registered for alleged commission of an offence punishable under Sections 303(2)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and the Petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the said case. He further submitted that in connection with the aforesaid case, a vehicle, which is a Truck bearing Registration No.OR-21-A-5125 was seized and that the Petitioner happens to be the owner of the said vehicle. Accordingly, an application was filed for interim release of the said vehicle under Section 503 of B.N.S.S., 2023, which corresponds to Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. and the same was registered as C.M.A. No.145 of 2025. 7. At the first instance, learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, vide his order dated 02.05.2025 rejected the application on the ground that the investigation is in progress and that the I.O. has not yet ascertained the nature and category of the coal that was being illegally transported. 8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2025, the Petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.8 of 2025. The said Page 2 of 5. criminal revision was heard and disposed of vide order dated 18.07.2025. Further, referring to the impugned order dated 18.07.2025, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that while considering the application of the Petitioner for interim release of the truck, the learned trial court has not taken into consideration the provision of law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Ashish Ranjan Mohanty v. State of Odisha, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Ori 520. He further submitted that in the meantime, the investigation has been concluded and that the vehicle which has been seized is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, further contended that the Petitioner is the lawfully recorded owner of the vehicle and, as such, the vehicle should have been released in his favour. He further contended that unless the vehicle is released in favour of the Petitioner interimly, the value of such vehicle is likely to deteriorate as the same is lying exposed in the sun and rain. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Ashish Ranjan Mohanty’s case (supra). Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned rejection orders passed by both the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur as well as learned Sessions Judge, Sambpur in Criminal Revision be set aside and further direction be given to release the vehicle interimly in favour of the Petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected to the release the vehicle in question in favour of the Petitioner. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the State contended Page 3 of 5. that the vehicle in question was found to have been involved in commission of a crime and that in the event the vehicle is released in favour of the Petitioner, there is every likelihood that the same might again be used in such type of offence. It was also contended that although the charge sheet was filed and investigation has been concluded, however, the vehicle is required to be produced before the court as and when the same is required during trial. On such ground, learned counsel for the State objected to the release of the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner. 10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case, as well as the impugned orders passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur in C.M.A. No.145 of 2025 at Annexure-2 as well as the by learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Criminal Revision No.8 of 2025 confirming the order passed the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur at Annexure-1, this Court observes that the Petitioner, who happens to be the owner of the vehicle, moved an application under Section 503 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer for interim release of the vehicle of the Petitioner. 11. On critical analysis of the those orders, this Court observes that the learned courts, while dealing with the interim release of the vehicle, have not taken into consideration the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Ashish Ranjan Mohanty’s case (supra). Moreover, in the meantime, the investigation has been concluded and charge sheet has been filed, as submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside Page 4 of 5. both the orders at Annexures-1 and 2. Accordingly, the same are hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur to consider the matter afresh keeping in view the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Ashish Ranjan Mohanty’s case (supra) and dispose of the application of the Petitioner after providing opportunity of hearing to the affected parties within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order by passing a reasoned order. 12. It is needless to mention here that while considering the application of the Petitioner, it is incumbent upon the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur to verify the ownership of the vehicle before passing the final order. 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC stands disposed of. Debasis ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 14-Oct-2025 19:16:25 Page 5 of 5.