Page 1 of 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No.2744 of 2022

Chittaranjan Bhoi

Petitioner

Mr. S.R. Mohapatra, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha

….

Opposite Party

Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

Order

No.

ORDER

24.11.2022

01.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

2.

Prayer in the present case is for release of a two-wheeler

bearing registration No.OD-02-AY-0362 seized in connection with

T.R. Case No.83 of 2022 which has been denied by the learned

Special court while disposing of CMC No.61 of 2022 vide impugned

order i.e. Annexure-2 on the grounds inter alia that the learned

Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar failed to

appreciate the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the said

vehicle and has not been chargesheeted by the local police.

3.

Mr. Mohanty, leaned counsel for the petitioner refers to

the FIR, a copy of which is at Annexure-1 and the chargesheet i.e.

Annexure-3 and contends that the learned Special court by order

dated 11^th August, 2022 in CMC No.61 of 2022 refused to release of

the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner without any

justification.

4.

In fact, the scooter was found carrying contraband

substance i.e. ganja of 50 kgs. kept in two polythene bags and was

intercepted by the local police, whereafter, it was seized in

Page 2 of 3

connection with the case. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that the petitioner is the owner and not a

chargesheeted accused and he approached the learned Special court

for release of the scooter which was declined under the impugned

order i.e. Annexure-2 which is unjustified and cannot be sustained

in law. Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the State submits that the

vehicle was involved in the illicit transpiration of commercial

contraband Ganja and justifies the impugned order i.e. Annexure-2.

5.

It is not disputed that the petitioner is not an accused. In

fact, it is made to understand that two others have been

chargesheeted for the alleged transportation of contraband Ganja in

the alleged scooter.

6.

In so far as Anenxure-2 is concerned, the learned Special

court rejected the request for release and custody of the vehicle in

favour of the petitioner on the ground that it may still be required

for the purpose of investigation.

7.

However, having regard to the fact that the investigation is

concluded as in the meantime chargesheet stands filed i.e. Annexure-

3 and that apart, the petitioner is not an accused for the alleged

transportation of contraband Ganja and he being the claimant as its

owner, the Court is of the view that the vehicle which is seized in

connection with T.R. Case No.83 of 2022 should be immediately

released to his custody on verification of ownership documents and

conditions as would be imposed by the learned Special court. In

fact, law is well settled that vehicle or any such articles so seized

lying in the custody of the police should not be retained for long

and must be disposed of at the earliest or else its condition would

deteriorate being exposed to sun and rain and vagaries of the

climate. In the present case, there is no justification to detain the

seized scooter since the investigation is closed and therefore, the

Page 3 of 3

court reiterates that the same should be immediately handed over to

its rightful claimant.

8.

Accordingly, it is ordered.

9.

In the result, CRLMC stands allowed. Consequently the

impugned order under Anenxure-2 passed by the l