Pramod Kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arvind Kumar Verma, J

The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner assailing the order dated 23/09/2025 passed by the Special Judge Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957/Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in MJC Cri No.64/2025 whereby the learned Court has rejected the petitioner’s application seeking interim custody of the petitioner’s vehicle i.e. Trolley bearing Registration No.CG-11-AR-5734.

Brief facts of the case are as projected by the petitioner are that on 16.06.2025, during a routine inspection conducted in the local area, officials intercepted the vehicle and seized it on the allegation of transportation of sand without production of valid documents at the spot. On the basis of the said allegation, Police Station Chakarbhatha registered Crime No. 249/2025 for offences under Sections 4(1), 4(1)(A), and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. After seizure, the vehicle has been kept in open premises at the Police Station, exposed to weather conditions, resulting in continuous deterioration of its mechanical parts. Accordingly, the Petitioner moved an application under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Court of the Special Judge (Mines and Minerals Act), Bilaspur, seeking interim custody of the vehicle on supurdnama, submitting that he is the registered owner and is ready and willing to furnish adequate security and abide by any conditions imposed by the Court. In the said application, the Petitioner submitted that he is the lawful and registered owner of the vehicle, that the vehicle is required for his agricultural and household purposes, and that the sand in question had already been procured earlier for the construction of a residential house sanctioned under a Central Government housing scheme, and was only being shifted locally from a temporary storage point to the construction site. The Petitioner further submitted that continued seizure of the vehicle in the open is causing avoidable wear and damage to the vehicle and that he is prepared to produce the vehicle before the concerned authorities as and when required. The petitioner also submitted the Mineral Transit Pass No. 9295641. By order dated 23.09.2025, the Learned Special Judge (Mines and Minerals Act), Bilaspur, rejected the Petitioner's application for interim custody of the said vehicle. Hence this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that learned Court, while rejecting the application for interim custody, did not record any finding disputing or discrediting the Petitioner's status as the registered owner of the vehicle. He would next contend that it is a trite law where ownership is undisputed and the vehicle is not required for evidentiary purposes in its present form, interim custody ordinarily ought to be granted subject to suitable conditions, so as to prevent deterioration of the property during pendency of proceedings. He would next contend that the sand in question had already been procured and delivered earlier for the construction of a residential house sanctioned under a Central Government housing scheme, and that the vehicle was being used only for short-distance shifting from a temporary storage location. The Petitioner had not been alleged to be transporting sand for sale, trade, or commercial distribution. The impugned order, therefore, fails to appreciate the non-commercial, domestic nature of the alleged transportation. He would lastly contend that it is also a settled legal position that vehicles seized in connection with alleged offences are not required to be retained in open custody, where their continued detention would result in deterioration of condition and consequent loss of value. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the law laid down by the the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, wherein it has been categorically held that seized vehicles should ordinarily be released on interim custody, subject to safeguards, to avoid avoidable damage and depreciation during pendency of proceedings, hence the vehicle i.e. Trolley bearing Registration No.CG-11-AR-5734 may kindly be released on supurdnama.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the applicant.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection.

The 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:

Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

if proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepare, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of property in detail;

this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police station for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time.

This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.”

Similar stand has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, reported in 2013 (3) SCC 240, wherein the Supreme Court has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the Police Station in open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of weather conditions for a long period.

In the instant case, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no useful purpose would be served if the vehicle is allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the vehicles can be released to the petitioner, who is claiming himslef to be the owner of the vehicle. It is also pertinent to mention here that in this case it is found that the vehicle is left for natural decay for a long period of time and no substantive action has been taken and the vehicle is still left for irreparable damages.

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai (supra), the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 23/09/2025 passed by the Court below is hereby set-aside. It is directed that the vehicle i.e. Trolley bearing Registration No.CG-11-AR-5734 be released in favour of the petitioner, as interim custody on the following conditions:-

(i) Before release of the vehicle, the documents pertaining to ownership of the said vehicle be verified and proper Panchnama of the vehicles be made.

(ii) Photographs of the vehicles should be taken and bond should also be produced that the vehicles would be produced as and when required.

(iii) Proper security i.e. personal bond of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) and equivalent surety be obtained before release of vehicle.

(iv) The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the concerned trial Court that he shall not use the said vehicle for illegal transportation of sand.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is allowed.