Orissa High Court
Bibhuti Bhusan Singh @ vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 25 August, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.483 of 2025
Bibhuti Bhusan Singh @ .... Petitioner
Sing
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite party
Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
25.08.2025
Order No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the
impugned order dated 19th July, 2025 as at Annexure-4 passed
in Misc. Case No.02 of 2025 by learned J.M.F.C., Daringbadi,
arising out of 2(a) C.C. Case No.37 of 2025, whereby, an
application under Section 503 BNSS moved by him seeking
interim release and custody of the seizure vehicle bearing Regd.
No.OD-12-G-2649 in his favour was declined.
3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the learned Court below refused such release upon
receiving intimation about the confiscation proceeding initiated
in respect of the alleged vehicle. It is further submitted that in
an identical case, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ashok
Paswan Vrs. State of Orissa (CRLMC No.2464 of 2023) vide
judgment dated 5th September, 2023 allowed release of a
vehicle having taken judicial notice of the bar under Section 72
of the Odisha Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
hence, therefore, in the case at hand, the petitioner since the
owner of the vehicle in question should be treated equally
receiving the interim custody in respect thereof but it has been
denied vide Annexure-4.
4. On the contrary, Mr. Sahu, learned ASC for the State
justifies the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4 to contend that the
learned Court below did not commit any error or illegality and
rightly declined to release the seizure vehicle in favour of the
petitioner in view of Section 72 of the Act. It is further
submitted that the authority concerned under the Act is having
the powers to deal with confiscation of the vehicle, hence, the
learned Court below stayed its hand in releasing the same in
favour of the petitioner exercising powers under Section 503
BNSS and therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-4 is not
to be interfered with.
5. In Ashok Paswan (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court taking cognizance of the fact that notice was issued and
the confiscation proceeding was adjourned couple of times and
in absence of material regarding service of notice on the
petitioner therein directed interim release of the vehicle. In the
said decision, the ratio laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai Vrs. State of Gujarat (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444 has
been referred to besides the judgments of this Court in Aswini
Kumar Das Vrs. State of Orissa 2022 (Supp.) OLR 1004 and
Ashish Ranjan Mohanty Vrs. State of Odisha and others
(2019) 1 OLR 275. In the instant case, Mr. Mohanty, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that only after filing of the
application under Section 503 BNSS, the authority concerned
initiated the action and issued notice. Such submission is
essentially on the premise that by the time the application was
moved seeking interim release of custody of the seizure
vehicle, the learned Court below has had the authority to deal
with the same.
6. The Court has no material to ascertain as to when the
confiscation proceeding was initiated vis-à-vis the alleged
vehicle, while considering the claim of the petitioner. In a
similar case referring to a decision in Rabindra Kumar
Behera and others Vrs. State of Odisha (2025) 97 OCR 739,
this Court directed interim release of a vehicle in a similarly
situated case. In Bikash Kumar Sethi Vrs. State of Orissa
(CRLREV No.152 of 2023 disposed of on 18th June, 2025), this
Court concluded that merely a decision on confiscation is not
sufficient to deny the release of vehicle exercising powers by a
Court even when there is a bar under Section 72 of the Act.
7. In the instant case, the vehicle in question is in custody
of the local Excise P.S. since 24th February, 2025. The learned
Court below refused such release since the confiscation
proceeding has been initiated under Section 71 of the Act.
Having regard to the above facts and submissions of learned
counsel for the respective parties and as it is claimed that the
vehicle is sought to be released with such an application under
Section 503 BNSS and it was at a time when no confiscation
proceeding was initiated and in any case, in view of the case
laws referred to hereinbefore and having regard to the fact that
a seizure vehicle should not be allowed to lie idle for long as it
is not to benefit any one and taking note of the Apex Court's
decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the Court is of
the humble view that the vehicle in question should be released
in favour of the petitioner with suitable conditions.
8. Accordingly, it is ordered.
9. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 19th July, 2025 passed
in M.C. No.2 of 2025 by learned J.M.F.C., Daringbadi is
hereby set aside with a direction to immediately release the
seizure vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-12-G-2649 in
favour of the petitioner subject to verification of its ownership
and by imposing such suitable conditions as considered to be
necessary and expedient.
10. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Alok
