Orissa High Court
Nityananda Nayak vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 23 July, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.378 of 2025
Nityananda Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Das, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite party
Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
23.07.2025
Order No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the
impugned order dated 18th June, 2025 as at Annexure-1 passed
in connection with Criminal Misc. Case No.02 of 2021 by
learned J.M.F.C, Parjang, whereby, an application under
Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking release and interim custody of
seizure vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-19F-9712 in his
favour has been declined.
3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the alleged vehicle is involved in connection with the case
registered for offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) IPC
corresponding to G.R. Case No.42 of 2021 pending in the file
of learned court below. It is further submitted that the petitioner
was allowed to furnish cash surety for an amount of Rs.11 lac
with other conditions but he is not able to arrange the surety
and hence, the seizure vehicle is still lying in the custody of the
local police. Referring to a decision of this Court in
Abhimanyu Sahoo Vrs. State of Orissa (1998) 15 OCR 109,
it is further submitted that in the interest of justice, such release
and interim custody of the vehicle in question should be
directed accepting property surety from the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the
State justifies the impugned order at Annexure-1 on the ground
that the earlier order was modified and the deposit is in respect
of amount of Rs.11 lac. It is further submitted that the condition
as has been imposed for compliance by the petitioner should
not be entirely be modified and replaced with property surety.
5. A copy of the judgment dated 25th March, 2022 in
CRLREV No.214 of 2021 is produced by Mr. Das, learned
counsel for the petitioner and submits that this Court, while
setting aside the order dated 24th May, 2021 of the learned court
below, had allowed the petitioner an opportunity to furnish cash
surety failing which the alleged vehicle to be put to auction. It
is contended that the petitioner yet again approached in
CRLREV No.509 of 2022 seeking to set aside the order dated
2nd May, 2022 of the learned court below and therein, liberty
was granted to approach the Court of learned Session Judge,
Dhenkanal with a revision and accordingly, it was filed and
disposed of on 6th March, 2025 vide Criminal Revision No.18
of 2023 with a direction to obtain a fresh valuation report from
the concerned RTO in accordance with the order in CRLREV
No.214 of 2021 in respect of the seized vehicle, while
considering its release in favour of the petitioner. Later to the
said order, the learned court below directed the petitioner to
furnish the cash surety of Rs.11 lac, which is on the higher side
and since the petitioner is not able to manage it, therefore,
according to the Court, the same is required to be modified
once again. In Abhimanyu Sahoo (supra), this Court while
exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directed interim
release of a motor cycle upon furnishing property surety. In the
case at hand, the vehicle seized is a truck and has been in the
custody of the local PS ever since the alleged incident took
place. In fact, the alleged vehicle is lying in the premises of the
PS concerned since 2021.
6. It is well settled law that the seized articles including
conveyances should not be allowed to remain at the PS unless
required for the purpose of investigation, enquiry or trial as the
case may be. In the case of the petitioner, there has been an
order for furnishing the cash surety upon disposal of CRLREV
No.214 of 2021. The said order is of the year 2022 and despite
a direction for release, the condition of cash surety could not be
complied with by the petitioner for the reason stated. The
amount of surety has been reduced to Rs. 11 lac from Rs.15 lac
but still it is not able to be furnished by the petitioner. The
Court being alive to the settled legal position that any of the
conditions if imposed and not able to be complied and appears
to be onerous, it virtually amounts to denial of the relief granted
by the court and therefore, the same should accordingly be
modified, if necessary. Though, there has been an order
directing cash surety to be furnished in view of the Court's
judgment in CRLREV No.214 of 2021 dated 25th March, 2022
and the petitioner is unable to arrange the surety, keeping view
of the ratio decided in Abhimanyu Sahoo (supra), a case is
made out for modification of the impugned order as at
Annexure-1 substituting the condition as to the cash surety by
property security as the same would serve the purpose and meet
the ends of justice.
7. Accordingly, it is directed.
8. In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of
with a direction to learned J.M.F.C, Parjang to accept a
property surety of Rs.11 lac and upon receiving it to release the
seizure vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-19F-9712 in
favour of the petitioner subject to proper verification with
regard to its ownership and by imposing such other suitable
conditions besides the above as soon as possible preferably
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
9. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Rojina
Designation: Junior Stenographer
