[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Mohammad Imran vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026

2026:CGHC:12661

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Criminal Revision No.243 of 2026

Mohammad Imran S/o Rizwan Hasan, Aged About 39 Years R/o- Padri Jawar, P/o Tala, P/S Kanhai Hanuman Ganj, District Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh Through Power Of Attorney Rizwan Hasan S/o Noseer Ali, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Padri Jawar, P/o Tala, P/s Kanhai Hanuman Ganj, District Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh ... Applicant

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant

For Applicant : Shri Shubham Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Khulesh Sahu, PL.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 17.03.2026 SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU 1. This Criminal Revision under Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 has PRIYA

Special Judge NDPS Court, Saraipali, District Mahasamund in Case

No.03/2026 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 10/11/2025, during routine

vehicle checking by Police Station Basna, vehicle bearing registration

No.UP 72 BT 3907 coming from Padampur (Odisha), was intercepted

and searched. Upon inspection, a total of 60 kilograms of illegal

contraband ganja (commercial quantity) was recovered and seized

from the joint possession of the accused persons. The said vehicle

bearing Engine No. 3.3NGD05NXX533829 and Chassis No.

MAT843004N7N26894, was found to be used for the unlawful

transportation of the contraband substance. Accordingly, offences

under the NDPS Act and other relevant provisions were registered

against the accused persons.

3. The Applicant filed an application under Section 497 of BNSS

before the learned trial Court for taking vehicle bearing registration

No.UP 72 BT 3907 on Supurdnama, categorically stating that he is

the registered owner of the said vehicle and therefore, he is entitled

to take his 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 21.01.2026. Hence, this Revision.

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is

the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. CG-UP

72 BT 3907. It is further submitted that the said vehicle was being

used by the Applicant for his business, i.e., transportation purposes

and that the charge-sheet has already been filed. It is also contended

that the Applicant is not an accused in the present case, rather,

Saddam Hussain and one other co-accused namely Kiyamuddin

have been implicated and the Applicant had given the vehicle to his

brother Saddam and he had no knowledge of the alleged

transportation of contraband ganja. Lastly, it is submitted that the

seized vehicle is lying in an open space at the police station resulting

in gradual deterioration of its machinery and overall condition,

therefore, it would be appropriate to release the vehicle on

Supurdnama.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes

the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Applicant and

supports the impugned order. However, it is fairly submitted that the

ownership of the said vehicle is not disputed. It is further submitted

that confiscation proceedings under the relevant provisions are

pending before the District Magistrate, Mahasamund.

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 vehicle bearing registration

No.UP 72 BT 3907 was seized on 10.11.2025, the Applicant has not

been arrayed as an accused, there has been no objection to his

ownership, he 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 himself to be the owner of the article, so

that he can use it and the said vehicle does not become junk after

some time.