Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jahid Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27142
1 MCRC-34610-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 28th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34610 of 2024
JAHID KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Monis Khan - Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Kalpana Parmar - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973) has been preferred by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 25.07.2024, passed by XIV Additional Sessions Judge,
District Gwalior, in Criminal Revision No. 212/2024, whereby the order
dated 08.07.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Gwalior,
rejecting the petitioner's application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.
(now Sections 479 and 485 of BNSS, 2023) for release of vehicle Eicher
Truck-Container No. RJ-11-GC-7629 on Supurdginama, has been affirmed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the aforesaid vehicle was
seized by Police Station Mohana, District Gwalior, in connection with Crime
No. 111/2024, registered for offences under Sections 4/9 and 6/9 of the
Madhya Pradesh Cow Progeny Slaughter Prohibition Act, 2004, and Section
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27142
2 MCRC-34610-2024
11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, alleging illegal
transportation of cattle. Earlier, the same vehicle was also involved in Crime
No. 108/2024, registered at Police Station Lalghati, District Shajapur, for
similar offences, in which confiscation proceedings have already been
initiated by the District Magistrate, Shajapur.
3. The petitioner, being the owner of the vehicle, moved an application
before the learned JMFC seeking release of the said vehicle on
Supurdginama for its safe custody, contending that prolonged exposure of
the vehicle to weather conditions would lead to deterioration and loss of
value. The said application, however, was dismissed on 08.07.2024, and the
revision preferred thereagainst was also dismissed on 25.07.2024. Aggrieved
thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below
have failed to appreciate that under the scheme of Sections 451 and 457 of
the Cr.P.C. (now Sections 479 and 485 of BNSS), the vehicle ought not to be
retained in police custody for an indefinite period, and should be released to
the owner upon proper undertaking and surety. Reliance has been placed
upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil
v. State of Mysore [(1977) 4 SCC 358], Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State
of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283], and General Insurance Council v. State of
Andhra Pradesh [(2010) 6 SCC 768], wherein it has been held that seized
property should not be allowed to remain in police custody for long, as it
leads to its damage and decay.
5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the petition
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27142
3 MCRC-34610-2024
and submits that since the same vehicle was previously used for illegal
transportation of cattle and confiscation proceedings are pending in another
case, the release of the vehicle may not be appropriate at this stage.
6. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and on perusal of the
record, this Court finds that unless the vehicle is formally confiscated under
the relevant statute, its continued detention in open premises would result in
unnecessary deterioration and financial loss. The Apex Court in Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai (supra) has clearly observed that vehicles and other movable
properties should be released to the rightful owner on proper security to
ensure their preservation and availability for evidence or confiscation
proceedings.
7. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that release
of the vehicle on Supurdginama would prejudice the pending trial or
confiscation proceedings. The petitioner has undertaken to produce the
vehicle as and when directed by the Court or any competent authority.
Therefore, the vehicle deserves to be released to the petitioner, subject to
conditions ensuring its availability and proper upkeep.
8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated
08.07.2024 and 25.07.2024 passed by the Courts below are set aside. It is
directed that the Eicher Truck-Container bearing Registration No. RJ-11-GC-
7629 be released to the petitioner on Supurdginama, subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall produce the original registration
certificate, insurance, and tax documents of the vehicle
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27142
4 MCRC-34610-2024
before the concerned Trial Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall furnish a supurdginama bond
of ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) with one solvent
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court.
(iii) The petitioner shall not alienate, transfer, or create
any third-party interest in respect of the said vehicle without
permission of the Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall not use the vehicle for any
illegal activity and shall make it available for inspection or
evidence as and when required by the Court or investigating
agency.
In case of any violation of the above conditions, the
order of release shall stand automatically cancelled, and the
vehicle shall be liable to be re-seized by the authorities.
9. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of.
10. Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
