The ownership of a seized vehicle warrants its release under specific conditions to prevent unnecessary police custody.

Order on Board

30/10/2025

1. By way of instant criminal revision, the applicant has challenged the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by Special Judge, Mines and Minteral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957/ Sessions Judge Bilaspur in Special Case (Mines and Minerals) No. 15/2025 whereby an application was filed by the applicant (owner of the vehicle). for releasing of the vehicle (Mahindra 415 Tractor) bearing Registration No. CG-10-B.T.-5048 on Supurdnama.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 17 June 2025, during a surprise Digitaly signed by JYOTI JHA Date:

2025.10.30 +0530 inspection conducted by the Naib Tehsildar Belgahna, his team, and the Officer-in-Charge of Police Outpost Belgahna at Nagoi Ghat, Arpa River area, a Mahindra Tractor 415 DI (without registration number, Engine No. NRB4SBE0001, Chassis No. MBNTFAUVERNV04430) was found illegally excavating and transporting sand without any valid permit. The driver absconded, abandoning the vehicle, which was subsequently seized under Section 106 BNSS and kept in police custody. The applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle and on 05.07.2025 he filed an application for obtaining the vehicle on Suprudnama, which has been rejected on the ground of non- submission of legal documents like mineral transportation pass. Again second application was moved by the applicant for release of vehicle, which has also been rejected by the Sessions Court on the ground of non submission of mineral transportation pass. Hence this petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that trial Court has committed an error by rejecting the application of applicant seeking the vehicle in question on supurdnama as he is the registered owner of vehicle. He further submits that the seized tractor is lying idle at Police Station since 21.06.2025 and if the same is not allowed to be used for a longer time, it is likely to rot or rust and no useful purpose is going to be served in keeping the vehicle idle with the police; rather if the applicant is permitted to use the seized vehicle it would be in running condition. Therefore, he prays for the release of the said seized tractor on Supurdnama in favour of the applicant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the applicant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection.

6. The 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:

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

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

3. if proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepare, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of property in detail;

4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police station for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required a