IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.916 of 2025 Suchitra Sahoo …. Petitioner Ms. B. Sahoo, Advocate -Versus-

State of Orissa …. Opposite Party Ms. B. Dash, ASC CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

16.12.2025 IA No.1332 of 2025 Order No.

01. 1. Heard Ms. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State.

2. Instant petition is filed seeking condonation of delay in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for having presented the revision beyond the statutory period.

3. A delay of 11 days is reported as per the SR.

4. Considering the submission of Ms. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and explanation offered and put forth on record and also objection of the State, the Court is inclined to condone such delay of 11 days in order facilitate disposal of the revision on merit.

5. Accordingly, it is ordered and the I.A. is disposed.

(R.K. Pattanaik)

Judge CRLREV No.916 of 2025

1. Heard.

2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 14^th July, 2025 passed in connection with Criminal Misc. Case No.15 of 2024 by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khordha arising out of T.R. Case No.14 of 2024 corresponding to Khordha Model P.S. Case No.84 of 2024, whereby, an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim release and custody of the seizure vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-33-AB-9773 in her favour was declined.

3. Ms. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the power of attorney holder and wife of the accused, who is involved in the case and she had approached with an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. demanding interim release and custody of the vehicle in question but it has been declined vide Annexure-1 on the premise that it may be used and utilized in commission of similar offence in future. The submission is that the vehicle, a four-wheeler (Mahindra Scorpio) has been lying in the custody of the local PS ever been seized and therefore, the petitioner being the wife of the accused owner of the same, it should be immediately released in her favour subject to suitable conditions imposed.

4. Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, would submit that the learned court below did not commit any error or illegality in denying such release of the seizure vehicle since involved in connection with seizure of Brown sugar, which is a commercial quantity.

5. Perused the impugned order at Annexure-1.

6. The seizure has taken place in respect of the alleged vehicle, which is claimed to be owned by the petitioner. The petitioner has been booked for an offence under Section 52(a) of the Odisha Excise Act for being in possession of the contraband substance which is admittedly a commercial quantity. But, for the reason assigned by the learned court below, the request for such release has been denied solely on the ground that the seizure vehicle may be used for similar purpose after being released in favour of the petitioner. It is informed to the Court by Ms. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation is still underway. Though, there has been recovery of 252 grams of Brown sugar and it was seized from the brother of the petitioner, namely, Micky @ Manoranjan Sahoo and also the petitioner present at the spot but the Court is not in agreement with the conclusion reached at by the learned court below declining to release the vehicle for the reason that any such detention for a longer period likely to damage and diminish its value. Law is settled that unless and until for a specific reason, any such seizure article is required to be detained, the Court shall have to be release it forthwith in favour of the rightful claimant. In the instant case, since the petitioner happens to be wife of one of the accused persons and she has approached and demanded such release of the seizure vehicle with an application moved under Section 457 Cr.P.C., according to the Court, it should have been entertained and all