2025:CGHC:59073 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1477 of 2025 Ramesh S/o Ramdewa Aged About 53 Years Resident Of Village Majra, Tahsil Narnaud, District - Hisar (Hr) At Present Resident Of Village Birdanan, District - Fatehabad, (Hariyana)

... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station Nagarnar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

Order on Board

05/12/2025

1. The instant revision has been filed under Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the applicant against the order dated Digitally signed by VASANT V K A U S M A A N R T 27.10.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed in Special Criminal Case No.38/2025 KUMAR Date:

2025.12.06

+0530

by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bastar, place Jagdalpur (C.G.),

whereby the learned Court below has rejected the application of the

applicant under Section 497 of BNSS for releasing his vehicle on

Supurdnama.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the offending vehicle was seized by the police station Nagarnar in Crime No. 30/2025 alleging that on 09.02.2025 the police has seized the vehicle Bharat BenZ 1617 R BSIV- 10 registration No. HR-61-C-1025 chassis No. MEC0794CFHPΟ 22094 for commission of the offence under section 20(b) of N.D.P.S. Act, from the possession of the accused persons. The applicant is owner of the said vehicle and he had filed an application under section 497 of Cr. P. C. before the learned Court below for taking Supurdnama of the said vehicle, and categorically stated that the applicant is registered owner of the said vehicle and hence he is entitled to take his vehicle which has been seized by the police, but the learned Court below has dismissed his application vide its order dated 27.10.2025. Hence this criminal revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the order dated

27.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) is illegal, improper and incorrect and therefore, liable to be set-aside and not sustainable according to the law. He further contended that the applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and he has having original document of the offending vehicle, therefore he should be entitled for the Supurdnama. The learned trial Court has failed to see that the offending vehicle is a machinery and is standing in the open area therefore condition of the vehicle will be determinate with the passage of time, thus causing is loss of the applicant. The applicant is not involved in connection with crime and also his vehicle was not involved. in any crime, but the police has seized the vehicle only on the basis of suspicion and due to which, the applicant would suffer irreparable loss. The applicant is registered owner of the said vehicle and he was using to the said vehicle for commercial work and due to custody in police, the applicant is facing great financial loss and hence the said vehicle is liable to the released on Supurdnama. Therefore, it is prayed that this criminal revision may be allowed and the impugned order dated 27.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) may also be set aside and release the vehicle on Supurdnama.

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

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 arti