Seized vehicles should be released to the registered owner on Supurdnama upon furnishing adequate security to prevent deterioration due to weather and lack of use, as keeping them in police custody serves no useful purpose.

Order on Board

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section u/s 30-B(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 being aggrieved of the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by learned Special Judge Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Special Case (Mines & Minerals) No. 36/2025 whereby the application filed u/s 497 of BNSS for releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama, has been rejected.

2. The Vehicle/Tractor bearing Regn. No. C.G.10-AQ-3564, Engine No. E3444776 and Chassis No. 10533956655DG was seized by the Police in Crime No.607/2025 registered at Police Station Kota, for the offence under Section 303(2) of BNS & Sections 4(1), 4(1-a) and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. An application was moved by the present appellant registered owner, for releasing the seized vehicle on Supurdnama which was rejected by the Special Judge, Bilaspur by the impugned order which led to filing this appeal. The said application was rejected by the Special Judge on the ground that the vehicle was involved in illegal mining of sand at Podi Ghat of Arpa River.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the registered owner of the said vehicle and has valid and effective documents required for the said vehicle to be released on Supurdnama. He further submits that if the seized vehicle is kept for a long time idle in the Police Station, there is danger of it being damaged by vagaries of weather and no useful purpose would be served by detaining the vehicle in the police station till the trial is concluded, therefore, the seized motorcycle may be released on Supurdnama.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently supports the impugned order and submits that the appellant is accused of illegal excavation of sand in at the river ghat and at the time of inspection of the spot, he left the vehicle and ran away. Therefore, the interim custody of vehicle cannot be granted though he claims to be the owner.

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

6. Hon'ble 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 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 prepared, 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 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 security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time.

This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles."

7. The principles laid down or the views expressed in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai’s case (supra) regarding the immediate, expeditious disposal/release of seized articles (especially vehicles) u/s 451 of the CrPC have been reiterated and followed in subsequent cases, including Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat 2013 3 SCC 240

8. In the instant case, it is found that the sa