NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CrMP No. 2849 of 2023 • Namdev Babasaheb Raut S/o Babasaheb Raut, Aged About 30 Years R/o Panewadi, Taluka Ghansavangi, District Jalna Maha- rashtra, Through Power of Attorney, Gajanan Digambar Ubale, Aged About 42 Years, Digambar Ubale, R/o Jaghavbadi, Navin Gondha, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad (Maharashtra).

---- Petitioner Versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Yadav, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, P.L.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board

19.07.2024

1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State.

2. The petitioner has been preferred this instant petition under Section 482 of the CrPC being aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure A-1), passed by the learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Crime No.535/2023, whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for releasing his vehicle.

3. The case in nutshell is that the ofending vehicle was seized by police oicials of Police Station, Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) alleging that on 05.09.2023, the police has seized the total 56.940 Kgs contraband Ganja from vehicle Suzuki Swift Dzire Car bearing registration No.MH-20-BY-0902 and case under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act has been registered against accused persons. The petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and he iled an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court for taking Supurdnama of the said vehicle, and categorically stated that he is registered owner of the said vehicle and hence he is entitled to take his vehicle which has been seized by the police but was consequently rejected by the learned Trial Court. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is registered owner of ofending vehicle, and he is having a valid and efective documents required for the said vehicle, therefore he should be entitled for the Supurdnama. That the trail Court has failed to see that the said vehicle is standing in the open area for a long time and the vehicle is getting damaged which is an ultimate loss of the petitioner. That the vehicle was not involved in any crime, but still the police has seized the vehicle only on the basis of suspicion, therefore, it will be appropriate to release the vehicle on Supurdnama.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submission made in this regard.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and order passed by the trial Court with utmost circumspection.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by counsel for the parties and further considering the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, in para 7 and 17 has laid down guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by police. For ready reference, the relevant portion is reproduced below:-

7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should “

be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:

i. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

ii. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

iii. if proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepare, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the co