1. The present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by the Petitioner seeking for release of the seized vehicle, Maruti 800 Car bearing registration No. CG07-G/1639, on supurdnama.

2. The application for Supurdnama of the seized vehicle filed by the present Petitioner has been rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Case No. 3421 of 2015 on 4.12.2015. That a revision was preferred against the said order vide Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2015. The Revisional Court i.e., the Additional Sessions Judge (Atrocity) Rajnandgaon, has rejected the revision vide its order dated 2.2.2016, leading to the filing of the present petition.

3. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is not the accused in the criminal case and that on 9.9.2015 the police authorities of Police Station Somni, District Rajnandgaon had found the said vehicle being used by the accused Shamsher Singh alias Shammi, Kuldeeo Singh alias Sonu and Roshan Kumar Funde alias Golu and they were in possession of Leopard skin in the said vehicle belonging to the present Petitioner. The vehicle was immediately taken into custody and a criminal case, i.e., Criminal Case No. 3421 of 2015, has been registered against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 39(3)(a) & (b), 48A, 49 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Petitioner in between had moved an application under Section 457 of CrPC for release of the vehicle on Supurdnama. He further submits that the Petitioner is not the accused person but is the registered owner of the seized vehicle and that even as on date the trial is not concluded and it is at the very initial stage and it will take a long time for conclusion of the trial.

4. Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that after the conclusion of the trial there will a confiscation proceeding which has to be initiated by the authorities and only thereafter the vehicle could be finally confiscated by the authorities. He also submitted that now when the vehicle is in the custody of the police authorities since 9.9.2015, that is, almost for 14 months no fruitful purpose would be served if the vehicle remains idle in the custody of the police personnel’s exposed to the extreme weather conditions. The vehicle would get decayed day by day and would further deteriorate by passage of time to the extent that it would become unusable after some time and therefore in the interest of justice the vehicle may be released to the Petitioner. He further undertakes to give any sort of conditions required till the finalization of the criminal case or for that matter any other proceedings initiated by the authorities.

5. Counsel for the Petitioner in support of his submissions has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, 2002 (10) SCC 283, wherein in paragraphs 7 and 17 the Supreme Court has categorically enumerated the guidelines for releasing of the vehicle seized by the police. He further submits that this Court has also in Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 57 of 2014 in an offence under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 itself on 5.4.2016 has passed an order holding that the vehicle which has been seized under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 can also be released on Supurdnama.

6. Counsel for the State however opposes the petition on the ground that since the charge leveled against the accused persons and the vehicle seized is for the offence to have been committed under the provisions of Sections 39(3)(a) & (b), 48A, 49 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the vehicle cannot be released.

7. Having considered the rival contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the record what is undisputed position as reflects is the fact that the criminal case is at the initial stage and many witnesses are yet to be examined and unless the criminal trial itself is concluded the confiscatio