Khilesh Kumar Banjare vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 4535 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Khilesh Kumar Banjare vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 September, 2025

                                                             1




                                                                              2025:CGHC:48169

                                                                                              NAFR


                                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                                  CRR No. 958 of 2025

                      1 - Khilesh Kumar Banjare S/o Dhanaram Banjare, Aged About 32 Years R/o
                      Prabhu Sudan Ward No. 43 Safed Khadan N/r Vinayak Printers, Devrikhurd,
                      Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
                                                                                    --- Petitioner(s)

                                                          versus

                      1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Masturi Bilaspur, Dist.
                      Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
                                                                                --- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate

For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate

1 - Prakash Kumar Sahu S/o Basant Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Village Meu, Maruti Chowk District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

--- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T. S. Sahu, Advocate

For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate Digitally signed by VED VED PRAKASH PRAKASH DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date:

2025.09.22 10:32:54 +0530

1 - Abhishek Sonkar S/o Late Arun Sonkar, Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 33, Nayapara Dayalband, Thana City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

---- Respondent(s)

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Kumar Khatri, Advocate

For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board

18/09/2025

1. All these three petitions are arising out of from the same crime

number, and therefore, all these petitions are being heard and decided

together.

2. The CRR No. 958 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner- Khilesh

Kumar Banjare against the order dated 17.07.2025, passed by learned

Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,

1957, Bilaspur in MJC (Criminal) No. 24 of 2025, whereby the

application for grant of interim custody of Hyva Truck bearing

registration No. CG 10 BX 6168 has been rejected.

3. The CRR No. 961 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner- Abhishek

Sonkar against the order dated 25.07.2025, passed by learned Special

Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957,

in MJC (Criminal) No. 45 of 2025, whereby the application for grant of

interim custody of Hyva Truck bearing registration No. CG 10 AM 0342

has been rejected.

4. The CRR No. 1086 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner- Prakash

Kumar Sahu against the order dated 17.07.2025, passed by learned

Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,

1957, in MJC (Criminal) No. 32 of 2025, whereby the application for

grant of interim custody of Hyva Truck bearing registration No. CG 11

BJ 7032 has been rejected.

5. The subject matter in brief in all these three petitions are that, the

petitioners are owner of the respective Hyva Trucks. On 16.06.2025,

on being patrolling, these three Hyva Trucks, which were carrying

sand have been seized by the patrolling party on the allegation that

they are carrying sand without paying any royalty and it was being

transported illegally. The said Hyva Trucks have been seized, offence

of Crime No. 401 of 2025 under Sections 4(1), 4(1A) and 21 of the

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and

Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 have been

registered and charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Special

Court.

6. The respective petitioners have filed their application for grant of

interim custody of the said vehicles claiming that they being the owner

of the said vehicles and by keeping in stationary condition of the said

vehicles, it would decay and would be destroyed, therefore, the

subject vehicles may be given them in interim custody during

pendency of the criminal case.

7. After hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge, Mines and

Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 rejected the

applications filed by the petitioners by the impugned orders, which are

under challenge in the present criminal revisions.

8. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners would submit that they

have engaged the drivers for plying the vehicles, but they were not in

knowledge of the fact that they were carrying sand illegally. Their

vehicles have been detained since 16.06.2025, by which they are

suffering financially, as the vehicles are in hypothecation and they

have to pay the huge amount of the fixed installments to the finance

company. No purpose would be served, if the vehicles were lying in

stationary condition in the police custody and its condition are

deteriorating day by day by keeping it in an open place, and ultimately

it would be destroyed, which would cause a national loss. They would

rely upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

matter of "Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat" (2002) 10

SCC 283 and prayed for interim custody of the vehicles during the

pendency of the criminal case.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State supported

the impugned order and opposed the claim of the petitioners and

would submit that the subject vehicles were involved in illegal activities

of carrying sand and looking to the present scenario and increasing

the such type of activities of illegal mining of sand and its

transportation, their vehicles should be kept in stationary condition,

and they are not entitled for grant of interim custody. He would further

submit that their vehicles are liable to be confiscated, and thus, there

is no merit in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

annexed with the petitions.

11. Section 497 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section

451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) provides order for custody and

disposal of property pending trial in certain cases, which reads as

under:-

"497. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. --

(1) When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit Crr 780 of 2024 for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "property" includes -

(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody;

(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

(2) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of fourteen days from the production of the property referred to in sub-section (1) before it, prepare a statement of such property containing its description in such form and manner as the State Government may, by rules, provide.

(3) The Court or the Magistrate shall cause to be taken the photograph and if necessary, videograph on mobile phone or any electronic media, of the property referred to in sub-section (1).

(4) The statement prepared under sub-section (2) and the photograph or the videography taken under sub-section (3) shall be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Sanhita.

(5) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of thirty days after the statement has been prepared under sub-section (2) and the photograph or the videography has been taken under sub-section (3), order the disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery of the property in the manner specified hereinafter.

12. In the matter of "Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai" (supra), it has been held

that:-

7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C.

should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:-

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

2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, 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 the properly in detail; and

4. 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 stations 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.

21. However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly.

13. Similarly, in the matter of "Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai v. State of

Gujrat and another" (2013) 3 SCC 240, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the

Police Station in an open condition, which is prone to natural decay on

account of weather conditions for a long period.

14. Applying the aforesaid principles to the case in hand, the order

impugned rejecting the application filed by respective owners of the

vehicles for interim custody cannot be held sustainable, therefore, the

same is accordingly set-aside.

15. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and

following the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that

the petitioners are the registered owners of the respective vehicles

and it is of no use to keep the seized vehicles at the police station for a

long time, it is directed that the vehicles shall be released to the

respective petitioners (owners) on the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioners shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.

50,00,000/- (Fifty lakhs) with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Bilaspur.

(ii) The petitioners must satisfy the Court that they are the registered owners of the respective offending vehicles and the vehicles are having all requisite documents including live insurance certificates.

(iii) The petitioners shall not transfer or dispose of the offending vehicles to any one else and shall not make any change in its body, colour or engine. It is needless to say that make, colour, chassis number, and engine number of the offending vehicles shall be furnished by the petitioners before the trial Court with an undertaking that no damage shall be caused or no part of the vehicles be substituted.

(iv) The petitioners shall also file an undertaking before the trial Court that the offending vehicles shall not be used for commission of offence; and before giving interim custody of the offending vehicles to the petitioners, three coloured photographs of cabinet size from different angels clearly indicating

registration number and other particulars of the vehicles shall be kept on file. The expenses for the photographs shall be borne by the petitioners.

(v) The petitioners shall produce vehicle either before this Court or before the Collector or such authorities as it may be directed, on their own expenses.

(vi) The subject vehicles shall not be involved in similar nature of offence in future.

16. Accordingly, the present criminal revisions are allowed and the

impugned orders are hereby set aside.

Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved