Orissa High Court
Satyananda Behera vs State Of Odisha . .... Opposite Parties on 4 February, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
// 1 //
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No. 667 of 2024
Satyananda Behera .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Santosh Kumar
Dwivedy,Adv.
.
-versus-
State of Odisha . .... Opposite Parties
Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 04.02.2025
03. 1. This matters is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present CRLREV has been filed by the Petitioner with the
following prayer:
"In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most
respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to
admit the Criminal Revision Case calling upon the record pertains
to illegal seizure and detention of the vehicle bearing Regd. No OD-
01-AL-9906, Engine No. JF17ELLGL13556, Chassis No.
MBLIFW244LGL06328.
a. Set aside order dated 29.10.2024 and pass order directing release
of the vehicle bearing Regd. No OD-01-AL-9906, Engine No.
JF17ELLGL13556, Chassis No. MBLJFW244LGL06328 in favour of
Digitally Signed b. to pass any other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems
Designation: P.A. fit and proper in the facts circumstances of this case."
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 06-Feb-2025 19:30:25
// 2 //
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Court has
earlier decided the similar issue in the judgment dated 05.08.2020
passed in Crl.MC No.985 of 2020 (Ratnakar Behera-vrs.- State of
Odisha). Hence, he submits that this CRLREV may be disposed
of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Ratnakar
Behera (supra).
5. Learned counsel for the State submit that she has no objection,
if this matter is disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in
the case of Ratnakar Behera (supra).
6. On perusal of the records and the judgment passed in the case
of Ratnakar Behera (supra), it appears that similar issue has
already been decided by this Court in the said judgment which
was disposed of on 05.08.2020. The ordering portion of the said
judgment is as follows.
" xxx xxx xxx
10. The above-mentioned ratio has also been iterated by this Court in the
case of Dilip Kumar Das & Ors. v. The State of Odisha: 2019 ILR Cut
386: 2019 (II) OL 1038, wherein this Hon'ble Court has held that since
no confiscation proceeding has yet been initiated in accordance with the
law, the vehicle in question cannot be left in a state of damage being
exposed to sun, rain and without proper maintenance.
11. Having considered the matter in the aforesaid perspective and guided
by the precedents cited herein above, this Court sets aside the order dated
05.02.2020 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge,
Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2019 and allows
// 3 //
1. The petitioner is directed to make the vehicle available as and
when required during investigation of the case and thereafter in
the court concerned.
2. The petitioner is directed not to make any changes or any
variation to the vehicle during the pendency of the trial in the
court concerned.
12. However, it is made clear that any of the observation made
hereinabove with respect to the fact of the case, shall not come in the way
or prejudicially affect the fair trial of the present case.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the present application is allowed."
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties and taking into account the judgment dated
05.08.2020 passed in Crl. MC No.985 of 2020, this Court is
inclined to accede to the submissions of the Petitioner.
Accordingly, the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned
J.M.F.C., Soro in Misc. Case No.232 of 2024 is set aside. The
learned J.M.F.C., Soro is directed to release the vehicle in the
aforesaid case in the zima of the Petitioner subject to the
condition that:
1. The Petitioner shall make the vehicle available as and
when required during investigation of the case and
thereafter in the court concerned.
2. The Petitioner shall not make any changes or any
variation to the vehicle during the pendency of the trial in
the court concerned.
// 4 //
8. However, it is made clear that any of the observation made
hereinabove with respect to the fact of the case, shall not come in
the way or prejudicially affect the fair trial of the present case.
9. Accordingly, the CRLREV is disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
