[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Kalandi Bhoi vs State Of Odisha And Another ..... ... on 3 December, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.997 of 2025
Kalandi Bhoi ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Biswaranjan Dalai
-versus-
State Of Odisha and another ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
M/s Siddharth Goutam
Das, B Singh, S. Panda, P.
Jena
Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
03.12.2025
Order No.
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. On perusal of the record, it appears that by order dated
26.03.2025 of the Coordinate Bench a notice was issued to the
opposite party No.2. Thereafter, the opposite party No.2 was
represented by Mr. Siddharth Goutam Das, learned counsel and his
associates.
3. Mr. Das, appeared before this Court on 24.09.2025 took time
to file his reply. When the matter was further listed on 27.10.2025 &
30.10.2025 none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2.
Today also there is nobody representing the opposite party No.2.
4. In such view of the matter, this Court is constrained to
proceed to decide the matter on its own merit.
5. The present application has been filed at the instance of the
Informant-Petitioner by invoking the inherent power of this Court
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which corresponds to 528 of BNSS
with a prayer to quash order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the learned
J.M.F.C., Salipur in Crl. Misc. Case No.163 of 2024, whereby the
learned trial Court, on an application filed under Section 503 of
BNSS at the instance of the owner of the vehicle, has passed an
order to release the vehicle in favour of the opposite party No.2,
owner of the vehicle, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned
in order dated 07.01.2025.
6. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State. None appears for the opposite party No.2
despite valid service of notice.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
on the basis of the FIR registered as Salipur P.S. Case No.188 of
2024, which corresponds to G.R. Case No.584 of 2024, for alleged
commission of an offence punishable under Section 279, 304-A of
the IPC. The said FIR was initially lodged against unknown driver
of the tractor which had caused the accident and as a result of such
accident the younger son of the Petitioner died. While the above
noted G.R. Case was pending for trial, an application, purported to
be under Section 503 of BNSS, was filed at the instance of the
opposite party No.2. The aforesaid application was taken up for
hearing by the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur on 07.01.2025. By virtue of
the impugned order the learned trial Court has directed for the
interim release of the vehicle subject to the terms and conditions
mentioned in such order. Being aggrieved by such order, the
Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present
application.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 is highly illegal and arbitrary.
He further contended that the application should have been filed
under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. instead of 503 of BNSS as the case in
which the application was filed was being tried under the provisions
of the Cr.P.C. He further contended that the learned J.M.F.C.,
Salipur although directed the release of the vehicle, however, the
same is without securing the release of such vehicle by adequate
security. In the said context, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referred to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Usha Devi & Others vs. Pawan Kumar & Others in Civil Appeal
Nos.9936-9937 of 2016 decided on 26.03.2018. By referring to the
aforesaid order, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court while analyzing the law on the subject has
come to a conclusion that in the event of interim release of the
vehicle in favour of the registered owner, the Court should ensure
that adequate security be taken from the owner of the vehicle.
9. Furthermore, referring to the impugned order dated
07.01.2025, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that while
releasing the vehicle in the present case, which is a tractor bearing
Regd. No- OD-05-AR-2966, in favour of the Petitioner, the learned
trial Court referred to the SOP prepared by this Court and directed
for release of the vehicle subject to the Petitioner furnishing LIC
policies to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and an indemnity bond to the
tune of Rs.4,70,000/- along with one solvent surety for each vehicle
for the like amount and other conditions. In view of the aforesaid
order passed by the J.M.F.C., Salipur, learned counsel for the
Petitioner contended that the vehicle has been interimly released
without taking adequate security from the owner of the vehicle.
Accordingly, it was argued that the impugned order releasing the
vehicle in favor of the Petitioner interimly is unsustainable in law.
10. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, while
supporting the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur,
contended that in view of the settled position of law the learned trial
Court has not committed any illegality. In course of his argument,
learned counsel for the State referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. vs. State of
Gujarat reported in AIR (2003) SC 638. He also referred to the
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ashis Ranjan
Mohanty vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.31622 of
2021. By referring to the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for
the State contended that the learned trial Court has not committed
any illegality in releasing the vehicle interimly in favour the
registered owner thereof. It was also contended that the learned trial
Court has also followed the SOP issued by this Court with regard to
release of the vehicle which has been seized in connection with any
criminal case. On such ground, learned counsel for the State
contended that the present application filed by the Petitioner
assailing the validity of order dated 07.01.2025 is unsustainable in
law. Accordingly, the present application is liable to be dismissed as
the same is devoid of merit.
11. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts
as well as on a close scrutiny of order dated 07.01.2025 passed by
the learned J.M.F.C., Salipure, this Court observes that on an
application filed by the owner of the vehicle, the vehicle has been
interimly released in favour of the registered owner subject to the
terms and conditions reflected in order dated 07.01.2025. There is no
dispute with regard to the law relating to interim release of the
vehicle in favour of the recorded owner and the same has been
crystalized in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
well as of a Division Bench of this Court, which have been referred
to hereinabove. Thus, this Court holds that the learned J.M.F.C.,
Salipur has not committed any illegality in releasing the vehicle
interimly in favour of the registered owner subject to the terms and
conditions as per the SOP issued by this Court.
12. However, on a critical examination of order dated 07.01.2025,
this Court is of the view that the release of such vehicle has not been
adequately secured. In view of the submission made by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner this Court has reason to believe that the
LIC policies which have submitted by the owner of vehicle have
lapsed in the meantime. It is also the settled position of law that the
learned trial Court while releasing the vehicle is required to secure
the production of such vehicle by imposing adequate financial
conditions. Such condition is more of a safeguard to realize the value
of the vehicle in the event the owner of the vehicle fails to produce
such vehicle before the learned trial Court. Taking into consideration
the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the leaned
J.M.F.C., Salipur is required to reexamine the issue regarding
financial security imposed for the interim release of the vehicle,
especially in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the LIC policies which were submitted at the time of
interim release of the vehicle have lapsed in the meantime.
Accordingly, the order dated 07.01.2025, so far as it relates to
imposing of the condition with regard to the financial security for
release of the vehicle, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to
the learned trial Court to impose adequate financial security after
providing opportunities to both sides.
13. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CRLMC
application stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Digitally Signed Page 6 of 6.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 06-Dec-2025 13:58:39
