[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Jaleshwar Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 April, 2026
1
Digitally
signed by
BHOLA
BHOLA NATH
NATH KHATAI
KHATAI Date:
2026.04.04
11:26:14
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 696 of 2026
Jaleshwar Kashyap S/o Shri Sukdev Kashyap Aged About 40
Years R/o Village- Khaira, Daganiya, P.S.- Ratanpur, District-
Bilaspur(CG)
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Station House Officer, Police
Thana - Seepat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Cg)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate
For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
02.04.2026
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section u/s
30-B(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 being aggrieved of the order dated
31.01.2026 passed by learned Special Judge, Mines and
Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Bilaspur,
District Bilaspur in Special Case (Mines & Minerals) No.
37/2025 whereby the application filed u/s 497 of BNSS for
releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama, has been rejected.
2. The Vehicle (Tractor Trolley) bearing Registration No.
C.G.10/AK-0553 was seized by the Police in Crime
No.629/2025 registered at Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur
for the offence under Section 303(2), 3(5) of BNS &
Sections 4(1)(A) and 21 of Mines and Minerals
(Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. An application was
moved by the present appellant registered owner for
releasing the seized vehicle on Supurdnama which was
rejected by the Special Judge, Bilaspur vide order dated
31.01.2026 leading to the filing of this appeal. The said
application was rejected by the Special Judge on the
ground that the vehicle was involved in illegal mining of
sand in Khaira area, District Bilaspur.
3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is
the registered owner of the said vehicle and he has valid
and effective documents required for the said vehicle to be
released on Supurdnama. He further submits that if the
seized vehicle is kept for a long time idle in the Police
Station, there is danger of it being damaged by vagaries of
weather and no useful purpose would be served by
detaining the vehicle in the police station till the trial is
concluded, therefore, it is prayed that the seized vehicle
may be released on Supurdnama.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently
opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the
appellant and supported the impugned order. However, he
submits that there is no previous record of the appellant.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection.
6. 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 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."
7. 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.
8. Recently in the matter of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of
Assam, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court 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. ........... 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.
9. In the instant case, it is pertinent to mention that there is
no objection to the ownership of the appellant. At the
relevant time, the said vehicle was being driven by driver
Amar Kewant. 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
appellant, who is claiming himself to be the owner of the
vehicle, so that he can get the vehicle into optimum
utilization thereby it does not become junk and suffer
irreparable loss. In this case, it is found that the said
vehicle is left idle for a long period and is still put to
irreparable damages.
10. Considering the 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), the instant appeal is allowed and
the impugned order dated 31.01.2026 is hereby set aside.
11. Accordingly, it is directed that the interim custody of the
Tractor Trolley bearing Registration No. C.G.10/AK-0553
be immediately handed over to the appellant on his
furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with
one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court by way of
Supurdnama. He shall further furnish a Bank Guarantee
in sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The appellant shall also submit
an undertaking that he will not alter the nature, condition,
or colour of the vehicle/equipment during the interim
period nor shall he create a third party right or interest
over the said vehicle. He shall also undertake that he shall
produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court
during trial. He shall further undertake to produce the
vehicle to any competent authority under any other
statutes as and when required.
12. With the aforesaid observation/directions, the present
appeal stands allowed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai
