[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Niranjan Singh Paikra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 April, 2026
1
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM SINGH
SINGH RAGHUVANSHI
RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.04.09
18:33:59 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 429 of 2026
Niranjan Singh Paikra S/o Late Mahraj Singh Paikra Aged About 49
Years Resident of Nagoi, Chowki, Belgahana P.S. Kota, District-
Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Police Station-
Kota (Police Chowki Belgahana) District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent
For the appellant : Mr. T. R. Patel, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
09.04.2026
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 02.12.2025 passed by learned
Special Judge Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act,
1957, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Special Case (Mines & Minerals)
No. 28/2025 whereby the application filed u/s 497 of BNSS for
releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama, has been rejected.
2. The Vehicle/Tractor-trolley bearing Regn. No.C.G.10/BD-5086
Chassis No. IVY5045DPLA020899 and Engine No. PY3029D607317
was seized by the Police in Crime No.617/2025 registered at Police
Station Kota, (Police Chowki Belgahana) Bilaspur for the offence
under Section 303(2) of BNS & Sections 4(1), 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 02.12.2025 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 at
Nagoi Ghat of Arpa River.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the
registered owner of the said vehicle. The appellant 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 motorcycle 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. He submits that The vehicle's number plate had
been deliberately removed.
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. In the instant case, it is pertinent to mention that there is no
objection to the ownership of the appellant. 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.
9. 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), the instant appeal is allowed and the order dated
02.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge Bilaspur in Crime
No. 617/2025 of P.S. Kota (Police Choki - Belgahana) is hereby set
aside.
10. Accordingly, it is directed that the interim custody of Tractor-trolley
bearing Regn. No. C.G.10/BD-5086 be immediately handed over to
the appellant on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- 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.
11. However, it is made clear that this order of interim custody shall
cease to be effective in the event of confiscation proceedings already
decided or upon final disposal of the criminal case. If the
confiscation has already been done, the custody of the vehicle shall
be in accordance with the confiscation order.
12. With the aforesaid observation/directions, the present appeal stands
allowed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Shubham
