Chattisgarh High Court
Mina Chouhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2026
1 2026:CGHC:9873 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 177 of 2026 Mina Chouhan W/o Chamru Chouhan Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 05 (Wrongly Mentioned As Ward No.15 In The Impugned Order), Mahantpara, Bamhnibazar Village And Post- Bamhnidih, Police Station And Tahsil Bamhnidih, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Singhoda Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) ...Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Pritam Singh, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 25.02.2026 SISTLA NEELIMA 1. This Criminal Revision under Section 438/442 of BNSS, 2023 VISHNU PRIYA has been filed against the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.26 11:02:30 +0530 2 Special Judge (NDPS Act), Saraipali, District Mahasamund in Crime No.65/2025 whereby, the application preferred by the Applicant under Section 497 of BNSS for releasing the seized vehicle on Supurdnama has been rejected.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 07.08.2025, upon receiving information through Dial 112 regarding an accident, the police intercepted a black and white Scorpio bearing registration No. CG- 12-BF-4655, whose driver had allegedly driven rashly and negligently, causing an accident and grievous injuries to one Digambar Patel. During further inquiry and search, conducted in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act, the said Scorpio and a white Ertiga bearing registration No. CG-04-LM-0358 (allegedly piloting the vehicle) were seized. From the Scorpio, a total of 30 kilograms of Ganja (21 packets of 1 kg each, along with additional packets of 5 kg and 4 kg) were recovered, along with 6 goats and 3 bucks alleged to be stolen. Accordingly, offences under the NDPS Act and other relevant provisions were registered against the Applicant.
3. The Applicant filed an application under Section 497 of BNSS before the learned trial Court for taking the white Ertiga bearing registration No.CG-04-LM-0358 on Supurdnama, categorically stating that she is the registered owner of the said vehicle and therefore, she is entitled to take her vehicle which has been seized 3 by the police. The said application of the Applicant was rejected by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 04.11.2025. Hence, this Revision.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. CG- 04-LM-0358 (White Ertiga). It is further submitted that the said vehicle was merely piloting the black and white Scorpio bearing registration No. CG-12-BF-4655, from which 30 kilograms of ganja, 6 goats and 3 bucks were seized and that the charge-sheet has already been filed. Lastly, it is contended that the seized vehicle is lying in an open place at the police station, resulting in gradual deterioration of its machinery and condition, therefore, it would be appropriate to release the vehicle on Supurdnama.
5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by learned Counsel for the Applicant and supported the impugned order. However, it is fairly submitted that ownership of the said vehicle is not disputed.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection.
7. The Hon'ble 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 4 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:
i. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; ii. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
iii. 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; and iv. 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.
17. 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."
8. 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 whether conditions for a long period.
9. Recently in the matter of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 5 observed that the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can proved that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner's knowledge and has held in para 25 as under:-
25. Upon a reading of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view that the seized vehicles can be confiscated by the trial court only on conclusion of the trial when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged.
Further, even where the court is of the view that the vehicle is liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity of hearing to the person who may claim any right to the seized vehicle before passing an order of confiscation. However, the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner's knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the seized vehicle by the accused person.
10. In the instant case, it is pertinent to mention the most important facts of the case that the offending bearing registration No.CG-04-LM-0358 (White Ertiga) was seized on 07.08.2025, the Applicant has not been arrayed as an accused, there has been no objection to her ownership, she has a right to raise any other grounds and also reserving to submit all relevant documents. It is also necessary to note that no useful purpose would be served if the said vehicle is allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the said vehicle can be released to the Applicant, who is claiming herself to be the owner of the article, so that she can use it and the said vehicle does not become junk after some time. It is also pertinent to mention here 6 that in this case, it is found that the said vehicle is left for natural decay for a long period of time and no substantive action has been taken and the said vehicle is still left for irreparable damages.
11. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai (Supra) and Bishwajit Dey (Supra) and also considering the fact that the confiscation proceedings have not yet been carried out, the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Saraipali, District Mahasamund in Crime No.65/2025 is hereby set aside.
12. In view of the above, it is directed that the said vehicle be immediately released in favour of the Applicant as interim custody by imposing proper and reasonable conditions by the trial Court.
13. With the aforesaid observation/directions, the present Criminal Revision is allowed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Priya