Digitally signed by ALLENA ALLENA ANNAJEE ANNAJEE RAO RAO Date:

2026.03.16

11:15:18 +0530

2026:CGHC:11898 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 467 of 2026 Vikas Singh Thakur S/o Manendra Bahadur Singh Aged About 46 Years Resident of Chandimata Chowk, Kargi Road, Kota, Tahsil and P.S. Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Through Power Of Attorney Holder/accused Anil Kumar Gouliya, Son of Tilak Ram Gauliya, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 03, Dak Bangla, Kargi Road, Kota, Tahsil And P.S.

Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Kota (Police Chowki Belgahana), District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For the appellant : Mr. T. R. Patel, Advocate For the State : Miss Sunita Manikpuri, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order on Board

12.03.2026

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. 27/2025 whereby the application filed u/s 497 of BNSS for releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama, has been rejected.

2. The Vehicle/J.C.B bearing Regn. No.C.G.11/AB-3246 Chassis No.

HAR3DXSSCO 1872119 and Engine No.H00078761 was seized by the Police in Crime No.619/2025 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 and he is not an accused in Crime No.619/2025. In this case, one Anil Kumar who was the driver/operator of JCB is accused of illegal excavation of sand at the river ghat and at the time of inspection of the spot, he left the vehicle and ran away. 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 earlier two criminal cases under the provisions of IPC were registered against this appellant.

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