Digitally signed by BHOLA B N H AT O H LA NATH KHATAI KHATAIDate:

2026.02.09 10:49:11 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 73 of 2026 Hemram Lodhi S/o Gajraj Lodhi Aged About 36 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Khairi, Police Station, Saja, Post Bortara, District Bemetara, C.G., Mobile 6267894532 ... Applicant versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Tulsiram Sahu S/o Late Kheduram Sahu R/o Sainagar, Baghera Ward No. 55, Police Station, Pulgaon, District Durg C.G.

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant : Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswa l

Order On Board

06/02/2026

1. This criminal revision under Section 438/442 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed against the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, District Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.83/2025 whereby the application preferred by the applicant under Section 497 of BNSS for releasing the seized vehicle on Supurdnama has been rejected.

2. The case in nutshell is that, on 28.12.2024, on receiving a secret information from the informant, the police officials of Police Station Amanaka, Raipur seized the vehicle (Hyundai i-20) bearing registration No.CG 04 LT 0770 in which respondent No.2 was carrying/transporting 103 Kg. Ganja. During the investigation, accused/respondent No.2 Tulsiram Sahu was arrested as the vehicle’s occupant and a case under the NDPS Act has been registered against the accused.

3. The applicant filed an application under Section 497 of BNSS before the learned trial Court for taking the said vehicle on Supurdnama, categorically stating that he is the registered owner of the said vehicle and therefore, he is entitled to take his vehicle which has been seized by the police. The said application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated

26.09.2025. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the registered owner of the offending vehicle, and he is having a valid and effective documents required for the said vehicle, therefore, he is entitled for taking his vehicle on Supurdnama. He next submits that at the time of incident, the offending car of applicant was taken on rent by accused Tulsiram Sahu for some personal work and the applicant nowhere involved in transportation of the cannabis and in commission of the alleged offence. The seized vehicle is machinery property and due to its lying idle in an open place, its machinery parts are being deteriorated day to day, therefore, it will be appropriate to release the vehicle on Supurdnama.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and supported the impugned order.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection.

7. 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 court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of property in detail;

and iv. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampe