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 02.12.2025 passed by learned Special Judge Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Special Case (Mines & Minerals) No. 28/2025 whereby the application filed u/s 497 of BNSS for releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama, has been rejected.

2. The Vehicle/Tractor-trolley bearing Regn. No.C.G.10/BD-5086 Chassis No. IVY5045DPLA020899 and Engine No. PY3029D607317 was seized by the Police in Crime No.617/2025 registered at Police Station Kota, (Police Chowki Belgahana) Bilaspur 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 vide order dated 02.12.2025 leading to the filing of 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 Nagoi Ghat of Arpa River.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the registered owner of the said vehicle. The appellant 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, it is prayed that the seized motorcycle may be released on Supurdnama.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned order. He submits that The vehicle's number plate had been deliberately removed.

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

6. The Hon'ble 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:

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 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; 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. Similar stand has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, reported in 2013 (3) SCC 240, wherein the Supreme Court has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the Police Station in open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of whether conditions for a long period.

8. In the instant