Orissa High Court
Satyabrat Senapati @ Satyabrata vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 6 November, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3305 of 2025
Satyabrat Senapati @ Satyabrata ..... Petitioner
Senapati
Represented By Adv. -
Ramani Kanta Pattanaik
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
06.11.2025
Order No.
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the application as well
as the prayer made therein.
3. The Petitioner, who happens to be the owner of a vehicle
(HYWA) bearing Registration No.OD-29M-6500, has approached
this Court by filing the present application thereby challenging the
order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge-cum-
J.M.F.C. Aul in C.M.C. No.48 of 2025 rejecting the application of
the Petitioner filed under Section 503 of B.N.S.S., 2023 for interim
release of the vehicle in his favour. The Petitioner is also aggrieved
by the order dated 02.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Pattamundai in Criminal Revision No.08 of 2025
thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Civil Judge-cum-
J.M.F.C. Aul.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that
the vehicle of the Petitioner was seized in connection with Aul P.S
Case No.189 of 2025, which corresponds to G.R. Case No.493 of
2025 while the same was illegally transporting sand. As a result of
which, an F.I.R. was lodged for alleged commission of offence
punishable under Section 303(2) of the B.N.S. read with Section 12
of the Orissa Minerals (Prevention of Theft Smuggling and Other
Un-lawful Activities) Act, 1988.
5. Thereafter, the Petitioner moved an application under Section
503 of B.N.S.S. for interim release of the vehicle in his favour before
the learned Civil Judge-cum-J.M.F.C. Aul, which was registered as
C.M.C. No.48 of 2025. Learned J.M.F.C., Aul, vide his order dated
24.06.2025, rejected the application of the Petitioner on the ground
that the Petitioner has violated the condition imposed by the learned
trial court while releasing the vehicle in an earlier similar criminal
offence involved in G.R. Case No.250 of 2025, which corresponds to
Rajkanika P.S. Case No.135 of 2025.
6. He further contended that while releasing the vehicle in G.R.
Case No.250 of 2025, the court in seisin over the matter had imposed
a condition that the vehicle shall not be used in illegal activities.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the
Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and that without his consent, the
driver of the vehicle used the vehicle in question for illegal
transportation of the sand. As a result of which, the Petitioner is now
suffering. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the
Petitioner contended that unless the vehicle in question is released in
favour of the Petitioner, the condition of such vehicle would be
deteriorated and the value of the vehicle would significantly
depreciate.
7. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referred to the judgments of this Court in Asish Ranjan Mohanty
-v.- State of Orissa and Ors., reported in 2022 (1) OLR 555 as well
as in State of Orissa -v.- Registrar General, Orissa High Court,
reported in W.P.(C) No.32580 of 2021 and prayed for interim release
of the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected to
the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 503 of B.N.S.S.
for interim release of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the State
further emphatically argued that the Petitioner has violated the
condition imposed by the court and he has knowingly allowed his
vehicle to be used for illegal transportation of sand, contrary to the
condition imposed in the release order of the vehicle in question.
Thus, learned counsel for the State contended that the Petitioner has
no ground to pray for interim release of the vehicle.
9. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that judgment
relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is not applicable
to the facts of the present case as the Petitioner has violated the
condition imposed by the trial court while releasing the vehicle
interimly in the earlier case. He further argued that the Petitioner is a
habitual offender. Therefore, in the event the vehicle is released in
favour of the Petitioner, there is every likelihood the vehicle might
be used in similar offences once again. In the aforesaid factual
background, learned counsel for the State submitted that the present
application is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be
dismissed.
10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties and on a careful examination of the materials on record as
well as the background facts of the present case, this Court prima
facie found that the alleged offence is the second successive offence
involving the vehicle in question. Moreover, the present alleged
offence is similar to the previous one. Thus, there is no doubt that
the Petitioner has violated the condition imposed earlier by the court
while releasing his vehicle in connection with the Rajkanika P.S.
Case No.135 of 2025. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is
of the view that the Petitioner is not position to claim any relief from
this Court. However, taking into consideration the fact that the
Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he was not present at the
spot, it cannot be conclusively said at this stage that the Petitioner
had knowledge or involvement in the alleged crime of illegal
transportation of sand.
11. In the aforesaid factual background, this Court is inclined to
grant another opportunity to the Petitioner and to seek release of his
vehicle interimly, subject to stringent conditions. While taking into
consideration the aforesaid plea, this Court would also like to lay
emphasis on the principle laid down by the Division Bench of this
Court in Asish Ranjan Mohanty's case (supra), wherein the Division
Bench of this Court has assessed the scenario very succinctly.
12. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the legal position, further
taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this
Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 24.06.2025 and
02.08.2025 under Annexures-1 and 2. Accordingly, the same are
hereby set aside. Further, it is directed that the vehicle in question be
released in favour of the Petitioner subject to stringent terms and
conditions as would be deemed just and proper by the learned
J.M.F.C., Aul. While imposing the condition, the trial court shall
also imposed a condition whereby the Petitioner shall furnish a cash
security of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) which shall be
deposited in the name of the Presiding Officer of the concerned court
and the same shall be subject to the final outcome of the trial.
Further, it is made clear that in the event of any further violation of
law and if it is found that the vehicle in question is involved in
similar nature of offence, this order shall be treated as non est in the
eyes of law and it shall be open to the trial court to proceed against
the Petitioner in accordance with law.
13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC
stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
