[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Mina Chouhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2026

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

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

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

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

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