##PAGE1##

SOURABH DsSP i AO igg T nU i E teR ad L l A by ByH PATEL D21+ 06 a 0 2: t 50 e6 38 :. 0 0:134.27

1

2026:CGHC:14005 NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 304 of 2026

1 - Vaibhav Katare S/o Shivshankar Ramaji Katare, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Baba Mastanshah Ward, Near By Turskar Nursing Home,

P.S Bhandara, Distt. Bhandara, Maharastra.

... Applicant versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S.

Fingeshar, Distt. Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent For the applicant : Mr. Gajanand Ratre, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, P.L.

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

Order on Board

24.03.2026

1. The applicant has filed this revision Petition under Section

397/401 of CrPC read with Section 503 of BNSS, against the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 in Special Criminal Case No. 239/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur (C.G), whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 503 of BNSS for grant of Supurdnama of seized

white Color Honda City four wheeler vehicle has been rejected.

2. In sum and substance, the applicant prays for a direction to

2

release offending vehicle as an interim custody on

Supurdnama.

3. The facts of the present case are that the Police Station

Fingeshar, District-Gariyaband(C.G.) seized a white Honda City vehicle (MH04/H.J./1555) from the accused persons under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, alleging it was used to

transport 26 kg 930 grams of ganja, a narcotic substance.

4. The applicant, who is the owner of the vehicle, moved an

application under Section 503 of BNSS seeking custody of the said vehicle on supurdnama, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur (C.G), vide the impugned

order dated 19.01.2026. Hence, the present revision

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the petitioner is

owner of the offending vehicle and is not accused of committing the offence. The applicant has having valid and effective documents required for the said vehicle, therefore, he is entitled for the Supurdnama of the said vehicle. The seized vehicle is machinery property and due to its lying idle in an open place, its machinery parts are being deteriorated day by day, therefore, it would be appropriate to release the vehicle on Supurdnama. He relies on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported AIR 2003 SC-638 and prays that this petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by

the learned Special Court be set aside.

6. Per contra, the learned State Counsel supports the impugned

3

order and submits that there are four accused in the case: Shivshankar Ramaji Katare (the applicant's father), Firoz Istari, Ajay Arya, and Prem Kumar Mahor, involved in the said offence. The offending veicle is being used by the applicant/owner’s father for illegal activities. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the vehicle should not be released on Supurdnama.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record with utmost circumspection.

8. it is evident from the record that it is undisputed that the applicant is the owner of the offending vehicle and is not shown

to be an accused in the said offence.

9. As far as retaining the vehicle in police custody is concerned, it is a matter of common knowledge that whenever a vehicle is seized and kept in a police station, it not only occupies substantial space but is also prone to fast natural decay due to weather conditions when kept in the open. Apart from that, several valuable and costly parts of the vehicle are likely to be removed, rendering the vehicle unworthy of being driven on the road. Therefore, no purpose will be served by keeping the vehicle in police custody for a long time as it will turn into junk and

also occupy substantial space in the police station.

10.Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v.

State of Gujarat (200)