Rajendra Singh Rawat vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

This petition under Section 528 of BNSS (section 482 of CrPC) has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.8.2025 passed by Special Judge, District Bhind in Case No.650/2025 MJCR, by which the application under section 497, 503 of BNSS filed by the petitioner was rejected.

It is alleged that the Police seized Swift Car Vehicle bearing registration No.MP.07 CJ 4781 in connection with Crime No.69/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115 (2), 296, 351 (2), 140 (3), 191 (2), 191 (3), 117 (2), 61 (2) of BNS, sections 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SC ST Act. Petitioner, who is the registered owner of the said vehicle bearing registration No.MP.07 CJ 4781 filed an application under Section 497, 503 of BNSS before the learned Special Judge for getting interim custody of the said vehicle. The learned Special Judge rejected the application vide order dated 25.8.2025. Being aggrieved by that order, petitioner filed this petition.

It is further alleged that learned Special Judge has rejecting the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that if the seized vehicle is given on supurdigi, there are fair chances to again indulge the said vehicle in the crime. In this regard, reliance is placed on the Apex Court judgement passed in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (2002)10 SCC 283, whereby the Court held that whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep seized vehicle at Police Stations for long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking bond and guarantee as well as security for return of said vehicle, if required at any point of time. Hence counsel prayed that the application be allowed.

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection.

This Court has gone through the record. It appears from the record that learned Special Judge rejected the petitioner's prayer on the ground that if the seized vehicle is given on supurdigi, there are fair chances to again indulge the said vehicle in the crime. In the light of the judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) , the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court for rejecting the petitioner's application does not appear to be correct. If the seized vehicle is kept lying at the Police Station, the value of the said vehicle would get diminished and its parts would get damaged.

Hence, the present petition is allowed and it is directed that the said vehicle bearing registration No.MP.07 CJ 4781 be released in favour of applicant who is registered owner of the vehicle on the following terms and conditions :-

Applicant shall furnish Supurdiginama to the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) and the surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for releasing the vehicle in question.

The applicant shall also furnish an undertaking that he shall produce the vehicle in question as and when required during the trial.

The applicant shall not alienate the same or make use of such vehicle for any unlawful purpose during pendency of the case.

An undertaking shall also be given by the applicant that the nature of the vehicle in question shall not be changed without prior permission of this Court.

It is further directed that before releasing the vehicle in interim custody of the applicant, the S.H.O. of concerning Police station shall get photographs sized 18 x 12 inches of the concerned vehicle taken from all sides and also the photographs showing engine number and chassis number. Such photographs shall be filed in the trial Court to be kept along with the record.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.