Interim custody of seized property cannot be denied solely based on ongoing investigations without proper reasoning.

Order

22.08.2025 No.

01. 1. Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.

2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order at Annexure-4 passed in connection with CMC No.93 of 2024 arising out of G.R. Case No.146 of 2023 by the learned S.D.J.M., Champua, whereby, an application under Section 457 Cr. P.C read with Section 503 BNSS moved by him seeking interim release and custody of the seizure vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-02-E-0577 in his favour has been declined.

3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation is in progress and the petitioner happens to be the rightful claimant and while claiming so, he refers to a copy of the General Power of Attorney at Annexure-3. It is submitted that the owner of the vehicle executed Annexure-3 in favour of the petitioner, hence, he is entitled to receive interim custody of the same but while considering an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. read with Section 503 BNSS, the learned court below has refused on the premise that the investigation is in progress. The further submission is that the vehicle allegedly seized in connection with case is lying idle inside the premises of the local PS, hence, it is likely to be damaged and therefore, should be released in favour of the petitioner with any conditions imposed by this Court.

4. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State opposed release of the seizure vehicle in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the investigation is still not complete.

5. Perused the copy of the registration certificate at Annexure-2 and the same reveals that one Sekh Manasur is the owner in respect of the seizure vehicle and he has executed Annexure-3 in favour of the petitioner. In so far as interim release and custody of the alleged vehicle in concerned, it has been denied only on the ground of pendency of investigation. According to the Court, the release of the vehicle could not have been denied without assigning proper reasons and the specific need of the seizure vehicle for the purpose of investigation. Merely on the ground of pendency of investigation, the seizure vehicle could not have been detained by the learned court below. Regard being had to the decision of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vrs. State of Gujarat (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444, the Court is of the view that the seizure vehicle lying in the custody of the local police ever since 12^th January, 2024 should be immediately released in favour of the petitioner with prior notice to the real owner.

6. Accordingly, it is ordered.

7. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29^th July, 2025 at Annexure-4 passed in connection with CMC No.93 of 2024 arising out of G.R. Case No.146 of 2023 is hereby set aside with a direction to learned S.D.J.M., Champua to immediate release the seizure vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-02-E- 0577 in the interim custody of the petitioner complying the direction as aforesaid and by imposing conditions as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.