[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
P. Gurushekhran vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2026
1
Digitally
signed by
BHOLA
BHOLA NATH
NATH KHATAI
Date:
KHATAI 2026.04.17
15:38:03
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 995 of 2026
RCS Lorry Services Through Its Proprietor P. Gurushekharan S/o
Shri K. Palanisamni, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 07- R. C.
Complex, 206/261 S.G. Mutta Road Chamrajpet Bangalore,
Distt.- Bangalore (Karnatka) Pin- 560018 Through General Power
Of Attorney Holder Shri Bramhadev Mishra S/o Shri Loknath
Mishra, Aged About 30 Years R/o. 74 Kashishrapti Hargad, Post-
Jigna R.S., Distt.- Mirzapur (Uttar-Pradesh)
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate,
Mahasamund, Distt.- Mahasamund, (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
P. Gurushekhran S/o Shri K. Palanisamni Aged About 41 Years
R/o 07 R C Complex, 206/261 S G Mutta Road Chamrajpet
Bangalore, Distt Bangalore Karnataka Pin 560018 Through
General Power Of Attorney Holder Shri R. Rajesh S/o Shri
Ramaswamy, Aged About 28 Years R/o 41 Kamrajar Theru
Kurumbloor, Post - Kurumbloor, Distt - Perambloor Tamilnadu
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate,
Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
For Petitioners : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Adv.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
16.04.2026
1. These two petitions under Section u/s 528 of BNSS have
been filed against the orders dated 10.02.2026 passed by
learned First Sessions Judge, Saraipali, District
Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Revision Nos. 03/2026 &
04/2026 affirming the orders dated 14.01.2026 passed by
the JMFC, Saraipali, District Mahasamund whereby the
applications filed by the petitioners for interim custody of
the seized vehicles were rejected.
2. The case, in nutshell, is that in CRMP No.995/2026, RCS
Lorry Services through its Proprietor P. Gurushekharan, is
the registered owner of Tata Truck bearing registration No.
CG 07 CX 7472. The proprietor has executed a power of
attorney in favor of Bramhadev Mishra S/o Shri Loknath
Mishra. In CRMP No. 997/2026, petitioner P.
Gurushekhran is the registered owner of the seized vehicle
Truck bearing registration No. KA 01 AH 4318 and has
executed a power of attorney in favour of R. Rajesh S/o
Shri Ramaswamy.
3. On the night of 23.12.2025, between 10:00 PM and 11:00
PM, these vehicles were found involved in the illegal
extraction of LPG from capsule trucks and the refilling of
empty cylinders using nozzle pipes. This was being done by
the accused, Prakash Gupta, along with his labourers,
Aslam Khan and Deva (alias Rakesh Vishwakarma). The
activity was being carried out under the cover of darkness
at a goat shed/farmhouse located in front of Navjeevan
Hospital, Chiwrakuta (NH-53), under Singhpura Police
Station. On 24.12.2025, the Food Inspector of Saraipali,
Mr. Avinash, submitted a written application for legal
action regarding the illegal and clandestine refilling of
flammable LPG gas. Based on this application, a case was
registered and these two vehicles along with other vehicles
and articles were seized from the spot. During the
investigation, the police apprehended Prakash Gupta son
of Mohan Gupta, who in his memorandum statement said
that the Indane Gas Agency is operated in the name of his
father Mohan Gupta and the incident site Bakri Set Farm
House is in his name and under the protection of Mohan
Gupta, both father and son together do the work of illegal
gas refilling.
4. The applications moved by the petitioners before the JMFC,
Saraipali, District Mahasamund, seeking the release of the
seized vehicles on Supurdnama, were rejected vide order
dated 14.01.2026. Aggrieved by the rejection, the
petitioners preferred revision petitions before the First
Sessions Judge, Saraipali, which were also dismissed vide
impugned order dated 10.02.2026, thereby affirming the
trial court's order. Consequently, the petitioners have filed
these two petitions.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are not accused in the case. Mohan Gupta,
his son Prakash Gupta and their two labourers Aslam
Khan and Deva (alias Rakesh Vishwakarma) are the
accused in this case. The petitioners have valid and
effective documents required for the said vehicles to be
released on Supurdnama. He further submits that if the
seized vehicles are kept for a long time idle in the Police
Station, there is danger of they being damaged by vagaries
of weather and no useful purpose would be served by
detaining the vehicles in the police station till the trial is
concluded, therefore, it is prayed that the seized vehicles
may be released on Supurdnama.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently
opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioners and supported the impugned order.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection.
8. 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."
9. 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.
10. 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. 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.
11. In the instant case, it is pertinent to mention that the
petitioners are not the accused in this case. The vehicles in
question were seized on 24.12.2025. RCS Lorry Services
through its Proprietor P. Gurushekharan, is the registered
owner of Tata Truck bearing registration No. CG 07 CX
7472. The proprietor has executed a power of attorney in
favor of Bramhadev Mishra. Petitioner P. Gurushekhran
is the registered owner of the Truck bearing registration
No. KA 01 AH 4318 and has executed a power of attorney
in favour of R. Rajesh. The ownership of the seized vehicles
is undisputed. It is also necessary to note that no useful
purpose would be served if the said vehicles are allowed to
get exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police
Station, rather the said vehicles can be released to the
petitioners, who are claiming themselves to be the owner of
the vehicles, so that they can use it and the said vehicles
do not become junk after some time. It is also pertinent to
mention here that in this case, it is found that the said
vehicles are left for natural decay for a long period and no
substantive action has been taken and the said vehicles
are still left for irreparable damages.
12. 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 impugned orders dated 10.02.2026 are
hereby set aside.
13. It is directed that interim custody of the seized vehicles be
immediately handed over to the petitioners by way of
Supurdnama, subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court,
under the following conditions:
i) Tata Truck (Reg. No. CG 07 CX 7472) to be released
to the power of attorney holder, Mr. Bramhadev
Mishra, upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.
20,00,000/- with one surety.
ii) Truck (Reg. KA 01 AH 4318) to be released to the
power of attorney holder, Mr. R. Rajesh, upon
furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,00,000/- with
one surety.
Furthermore, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to impose
any other proper and reasonable conditions it deems
necessary to ensure the production of the vehicles during
the trial.
14. With the aforesaid observation/directions, both the
petitions stand allowed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai
