Shailendra Singh Sikarwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2026

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10355




                                                               1                            MCRC-12828-2026
                             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                         BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
                                                   ON THE 25 th OF MARCH, 2026
                                            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12828 of 2026
                                                SHAILENDRA SINGH SIKARWAR
                                                           Versus
                                               THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          Appearance:
                                Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
                                Shri Satendra Singh Sikarwar - PP for the State.

                                                                ORDER

The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 528 of BNSS against the order dated 18.02.2026 passed by Special Judge (NDPS), District Bhind in MJCR No.134/2026 whereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 503 of BNSS for taking the possession of the seized vehicle (Maruti Swift Car) bearing Registration No.HR 55 AM 8681.

2. As per the prosecution story, the petitioner is a registered owner of

vehicle (Maruti Swift Car) bearing Registration No.HR 55 AM 8681. The contraband (Ganja) was transported in the said vehicle illegally. During the

pendency of the case, petitioner moved an application under Sections 503 of BNSS before the Trial Court for custody of the said vehicle, which was rejected by order dated 18.02.2026.

3. The petitioner claims to be registered owner of the said vehicle (Maruti Swift Car) bearing Registration No.HR 55 AM 8681. It is further submitted that earlier petitioner filed an application under Sections 457 of Cr.P.C. before the this

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10355

2 MCRC-12828-2026 Court for releasing the aforesaid vehicle which was dismissed vide order dated 06.11.2024. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an application under Section 503 of BNSS before the Trial Court which was dismissed. Hence, this petition has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and the aforesaid vehicle is in custody of Police and is lying in open sky while it requires continuous maintenance from time to time and if it is kept locked, the engine and other parts of the said vehicle will be out of order and the same will become useless for any work. There is no use of keeping the said vehicle in police custody for years till the trial is over. Trial is not likely to conclude in near future and may take long time. In such circumstances, it would be just and proper to release the said vehicle of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no use of keeping the said vehicle in police custody for years till the trial is over. Trial is not likely to conclude in near future and may take long time. In such circumstances, it would be just and proper to release the said vehicle of the petitioner.

6 . On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer and submitted that the Court below has rightly rejected the application. He further submits that no palpable error on the face of record has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in the order impugned. The said vehicle would be required during the trial for describing the nature of the property in detail, therefore he prays for dismissal of the instant petition.

7. Heard the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Sundar Bhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10355

3 MCRC-12828-2026 Gujrat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 has laid down the procedure for disposal of the valuable items like currency, liquor, vehicle and narcotics drugs and has held as under :-

"Powers under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:-

1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation.

2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, 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 the properly in detail; and

4. 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.

9. On bare reading of the said dictum laid down by the Apex Court, Section 451 of Cr.P.C. clearly empowers the court to pass appropriate order with regard to such property, such as

(1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial;

(2) to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it think necessary;

(3) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same.

10. The Apex Court in the case of Sundar Bhai (supra) has further held as under :-

"However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10355

4 MCRC-12828-2026 one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly."

11. Apex Court in the case of General Insurance Council and others Vs. State of A.P. And others reported in 2010 AIR (SCW) 2967 has held as under :-

"15. It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only they occupy substantial space of thepolice stations but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days. Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalized so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road. To avoid all this, apart from the aforesaid directions issued hereinabove, we direct that all the State Governments/ Union Territories/Director Generals of Police shall ensure macro implementation of the statutory provisions and further direct that the activities of each and every police stations, especially with regard to disposal of the seized vehicles be taken care of by the Inspector General of Police of the concerned Division/Commissioner of Police of the concerned cities/Superintendent of Police of the concerned district."

12. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that

the Court below did not take into consideration that keeping the said vehicle in the police custody for a long period is of no use. The condition of the seized vehicle is deteriorating day by day as the same is lying in open sky and under the heat of sun and rains. The vehicle looses its value day by day due to lack of maintenance, natural wear and tear and passing of time. The Court below ought to have passed appropriate orders by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the vehicle.

13. Taking into consideration the fact that ownership of the petitioner is not

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10355

5 MCRC-12828-2026 in dispute, therefore, this petition is allowed and it is directed that on proving ownership of the seized Maruti Swift Car bearing Registration No. HR 55 AM 8681 by the petitioner and on furnishing a cash surety of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs Only) in the form of fixed deposit in a nationalized bank or Bank Guarantee along with Supurdginama of Rs.2,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court. The aforesaid vehicle Maruti Swift Car bearing Registration No.HR 55 AM 8681 be released on Supurdginama, subject to following conditions:-

(1) That, the petitioner shall produce the said vehicle Maruti Swift Car bearing Registration No.HR 55 AM 8681 before the Trial Court as and when directed to do so;