2025:CGHC:14726 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1102 of 2025 Indu Sharma C/o Poshan Prashad Sharma Aged About 59 Years R/o Sector- 5, Gali No.-3, Airport Road, Near Shri Ram Bricks, Sharda Vihar Colony, Mana Camp, Raipur (C.G.)

... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station- Mana Camp, District- Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Ahmed Ayaan Mirza, Advocate For State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel lawyer Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board

27.03.2025

1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Session Case no. 269/2024 concerned in Crime No. 386/2024 registered at Police Station Mana Camp, District Raipur, for the offence punishable under Sections 64,, 351(2) of the BNS, wherein the petitioner’s application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 497 of the BNSS for release of her seized vehicle, Honda City Car bearing registration no. CG 04 NC

1947 was rejected by the learned sessions court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.09.2024 the vehicle Honda City car bearing registration no. CG 04 NC 1947 was seized by the Police of Police Station Mana Camp in connection with crime no. 386 of 2024 which was registered under section 64 and 351(2) of the BNS against the petitioner’s son. The car was seized on a complaint lodged by the victim, who had alleged that she was forcibly taken in the said car and the car was being driven by the son of the petitioner on that day i.e. on 04.09.2024. She further alleged that the petitioner’s son drove the car for a prolonged period without her consent and thereby attempted to make physical relation with her and eventually committed an act of sexual assault inside the same car. She even alleged that the doors of the said car were locked by the petitioner’s son and she was restrained against her will.

3. Based upon the aforementioned allegations police initiated the investigation and seized the said vehicle on 06.09.2024 claiming it to be the instrument used in the commission of the alleged offense. The petitioner’s son was arrested on 07.09.2024 and has remained in judicial custody since then, after the conclusion of the investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet before the trial court, and the trial proceedings have commenced. The petitioner, being the registered owner of the vehicle and having no involvement in the case, had filed an application before the Learned District and Sessions judge, Raipur, for the release of the said vehicle on Supurdnama which was rejected on 25.01.2025. Hence this petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and his name has been endorsed in the RTO documents. Documents of the concerned vehicle as well as the copy of the registration certificate has been place on record as Annexure P/2. He submits that the vehicle is standing in an open area and there is a probability the car would get damaged and its value would be deteriorated. Hence to substantiate his fact he relied upont he judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat(2002) where it is categorically held that seized vehicles should not be allowed to remain in police custody for long periods as they suffer depreciation and unnecessary damage. Hence he prays to allow the instant petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 25.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No. 269 of 2024 and release the seized vehicle in favor of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the State did not opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and states that there is nowhere the name of the p