2025:CGHC:56890 Digitally signed by MADHURI MA NAFR MADHURIMA THAKUR THAKUR Date:

2025.11.25

14:49:59 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR +0530 CRMP No. 3556 of 2025

1 - Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal S/o Rohit Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - Navagaon Salka. P.S. Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Kota, District-

Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush Lall, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board

24/11/2025

1. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally at motion stage.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957/ Sessions Judge Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Crime No. 55/2025 whereby the learned court below has rejected the application of the applicant (owner of the vehicle) for releasing his vehicle Tractor bearing Registration No. CG-10-BH-5299 and Trolley bearing Registration No. CG-10-BX-0577 on Supurdnama.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the offending vehicle was seized by the police station Kota alleging that on 16.06.2025 at about 8:00 a.m. the police has seized the vehicle Tractor bearing registration no. CG-10-BH-5299 and trolley registration no. CG- 10-BX-0577 for the offence under Rule 71 of C.G. Minor Minerals Rules, 2015 and Section 4(1), 4(1)(A) and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Registration) Act, 1957 from the possession of the accused persons.

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 16.06.2025 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 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 an