2025:CGHC:58328 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1453 of 2025  Krishna Kumar Jaiswal S/o Khorbahra Jaiswal Aged About 43 Years R/o Amne, P S Kota, District Bilaspur C.G.

... Applicant(s)

versus 

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Outpost In Charge Belgahna, P S Kota, District Bilaspur C.G.

--- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Soni, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L.

Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board

02/12/2025

1. By way of instant criminal revision, the applicant has challenged the order dated 19.11.2025 passed in Special Case (Mines and Minerals) No. 24/2025 by Special Judge, Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Annexure A/1) whereby rejected application filed by the applicant (owner of the vehicle) for releasing of the vehicle Tractor bearing Registration No. CG10BW8078 and Trolley bearing Registration No. CG10BX6196 on Supurdnama.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 14.06.2025, the aforesaid tractor &

trolley as well as related document have been seized by the Police Outpose In-charge Belghana in connection with Crime No. 616/2025 Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date:

2025.12.03 +0530 for the offence punishable under Section 303(2), of B.N.S and Section 4(1), 4(1)(A), 21 of Mines and Minerals Regulation Act, 1957 on the allegation of illegal transportation of sand.

3. The applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle and the petitioner filed an application under Section 497 of BNSS for custody of seized tractor & trolley, which has been rejected on 19.11.2025 by the learned Special Judge. Hence this petition.

4. 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 and trolley is lying idle at Police Station since 17.06.2025 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-trolley 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 Vs State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283.

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

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

7. 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 secur