ORDER

1. This is a petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the order dated 13.1.2025 passed by the I Additional Session Judge, Anuppur District Auppur in Cr.R. No.2803/2024 (25/2024) arising out of the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by JMFC, Anuppur Districrt Anuppur in connection with Crime No. 170 of 2024 whereby the application moved by the applicant under Section 497, 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for releasing the vehicle bearing registration No. CG-10-BV-0585 on supurdginama, has been declined.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that present applicant moved an application for releasing the Auto bearing registration No. CG-10-BV-0585 on supurdginama. the said Auto has been seized by the Police in view of a registration of a case under section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act. During pendency of the trial, an application was moved for release of the vehicle in favour of the present applicant as he is registered owner of the alleged vehicle, yet, the said application has been declined while observing that as the Court has received an intimation as regards the confiscation of the vehicle, therefore, the powers to release the vehicle in question on supurdginama cannot be exercised. The said order was challenged by filing a revision, but the Revisional Court has also dismissed the same. It is contended by the counsel that the order of confiscation cannot be passed unless there is judgment of conviction in the original case. In the present case, as of now, there is no conviction under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, therefore, vehicle in question ought to have been released in favour of the present applicant as, the condition of the vehicle is going to be deteriorated in prolong custody of the police. Thus, counsel submits that the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and supported the order passed by the trial Court, which is impugned in the petition. It is contended by the counsel that the vehicle in question is subject matter of an offence which is committed under section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act and an intimation was received by the Court that the confiscation proceedings were initiated and thus, by virtue of Section 47-A of the M.P. Excise Act, the Court is precluded from releasing the vehicle on supurdginama in favour of the present applicant.

4. Having considered the submissions, a perusal of the record reflects that it is undisputed that the present applicant is the owner of the vehicle in question and as of now, there is no conviction under section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act and merely pendency of the confiscation proceedings cannot be made basis to decline the applicant's prayer for release of the vehicle. The registration certificate has been brought on record as Annexure-A/3. The trial Court has dismissed the application only on the ground that as the confiscation proceedings are proposed, therefore, the vehicle cannot be released. (Plz. See Suresh v. State of M.P. reported in 2003 (1) MPLJ 638 and Prakash Vishwakarma v. State of M.P. and Another reported in ILR (2018) MP 2782)

5. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638, the apex Court in paragraphs 15,16,17 and 18, has held as under:

"15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time.

16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom