IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.898 of 2025 Suresh Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. A. Kejariwal, Advocate -Versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

09.12.2025 Order No.

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 23^rd July, 2025 passed in connection with Misc. Case No.58 of 2025 by the learned S.D.J.M., Bonai arising out of 2(a) CC Case No.248 of 2025, whereby, seeking interim release and custody of the seizure vehicle in his favour in terms of Section 503 BNSS was rejected.

3. Mr. Kejariwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below declined to release the seizure vehicle in favour of the petitioner, who happens to be the owner of the same on the ground that the confiscation proceeding has already been initiated by the Authorized Officer-cum-Superintendent of Excise, Rourkela. The submission is that the learned court below is having the jurisdiction to deal with interim release of the seized vehicle and therefore, the impugned order dated 23^rd July, 2025 at Annexure-5 is liable to be interfered with followed by consequential directions issued in that regard.

4. Recorded the objection of Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State, according to whom, the learned court below did not err or commit any wrong in denying the release of the seized vehicle in view of the initiation of the confiscation proceeding by the competent authority under the Odisha Excise Act.

5. Referring to the Bank statement, a copy which is at Annexure-6, it is submitted by Mr. Kejariwal, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is paying EMI on the loan account in respect of the seizure vehicle, hence, it should be released in his favour, otherwise, he would suffer immensely. In fact, the petitioner claiming himself as the owner of the vehicle, namely, Mahindra BOL MXX bearing Registration No. OD-14-AG-3790 approached the learned court below with an application under Section 503 BNSS but it has been rejected as earlier stated with an order dated 23^rd July, 2025. The submission of Mr. Kejariwal, learned counsel is that the vehicle in question is lying in the custody of the authority concerned since seizure and production, hence, it should be immediately released subject to conditions and also to abide by the order of confiscation if in case, it is directed. The objection of the State is that the vehicle is liable for confiscation under the Odisha Excise Act and therefore, the learned court below rightly declined the release of the same.

6. This Court while dealing with an identical case directed release of a seizure vehicle referring to a judgment of a Co- ordinate Bench in CRLMC No.985 of 2020 (Ratnakar Behera Vrs. State of Odisha), wherein, a similar ground was raised with the objection against the release of the same. In fact, the above decision has been referred to by this Court in Dusmant Dehury Vrs. State of Odisha in CRLREV No.868 of 2025. In a similar situation, this Court in Bibhuti Bhusan Singh @ Sing Vrs. State of Odisha (CRLREV No.483 of 2025) directed release of the seizure vehicle while considering the plea of confiscation pending against the same. Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and in view of the judgment of in Ratnakar Behera (supra), the Court is of the view that vehicle which is lying in the custody of the authority concerned and likely to be damaged on account of being exposed to severe climatic conditions, the conclusion of the Court is that the seizure vehicle should be released in favour of the petitioner as an interim measure pending decision in the confiscation proceeding.

7. Accordingly, it is ordered.

8. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 23^rd July, 2025 in Misc. Case No.58 of 2025 is hereby set aside with a direction to the