Orissa High Court
Binapani Mahananda vs State Of Odisha on 23 September, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3858 of 2025
Binapani Mahananda ..... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Amulya Ratna Panda
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.S.K.Parhi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
23.09.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as
learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Respondent.
Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made
therein.
3. By filing the present CRLMC application under section
528 of BNSS, 2023, the Petitioners seeks to invoke the
inherent power of this Court for waiver one of the conditions
imposed by the leaned trial court in its order dated 04.11.2024
passed in Criminal Misc.Case No.21 of 2024 which arises out
of 2(a) C.C.Case No.12 of 2024 now pending before the
learned Special Judge, Kandhamal, Phulbani.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset
contended that the vehicle belonging to the present Petitioner
was seized in connection with a case which was initiated on
the basis of a P.R. of Excise Department dated 23.05.2024 for
commission of offence under section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act.
In the pending application, the Petitioner, who is the owner of
the two wheeler bearing registration No.OD-12-E-9684 filed an
application under section 457 Cr.P.C. for interim release of the
vehicle in favour of the Petitioner. He further contended that
although the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kandhamal,
Phulbani vide order dated 04.11.2024 allowed interim release
of the vehicle, however the same was subject to certain terms
and conditions mentioned in the ordering portion of the order
dated 04.11.2024. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this
juncture specifically challenged the condition with regard to
bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. While challenging
the order in the aforesaid Crl.Misc.Case on the ground that the
Petitioner is the registered owner and a lady and due to the
distress financial condition, she could not furnish the bank
guarantee, as a result of which though learned court directed
for release of the vehicle but the seized vehicle has not been
physically released in favour of the Petitioner and the same
has been lying in an open place. On such ground, learned
counsel for the Petitioner contended that the order dated
04.11.2024 be suitably modified to the effect that the vehicle
be released as per the law laid down in the judgment of this
Court as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the
other hand objected to the modification of the condition
imposed in order dated 04.11.2024 in Crl.Misc.Case No.21 of
2024 by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kandhamal,
Phulbani. He further contended that the vehicle of the
Petitioner is involved in an offence punishable under the NDPS
Act. Taking into consideration the aforesaid ground, learned
Additional Standing Counsel contended that the trial court has
not committed any illegality in imposing the condition of bank
guarantee. On such ground, leaned counsel for the State
contended that the Petition of the Petitioner having no merit is
liable to be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties,
on careful examination of the facts and circumstances of the
case as well as on close scrutiny of the impugned order dated
04.11.2024, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court
has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order
by following the principle laid down in the judgment of this
Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, coming
to the conditions imposed, this Court found that the condition
with regard to the imposition of bank guarantee is excessive
considering the value of the seized vehicle. On an analysis of
the judgment of this Court in the case of Basudev Singh v.
State of Odisha (2022) 87 OCR 161 and Ashish Ranjan
Mohanty (Adv.) v. State of Odisha and others (2022) 85
OCR 705, this Court observes that the intention of this Court
was to release the vehicle so that the same shall not be
damaged any further. In view of such position, this Court is of
the view that the condition with regard to imposition of bank
guarantee to the tune of Rs.50,000/- as has been imposed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani appears to be
excessive. Accordingly, the aforesaid condition is modified to
the extent that the Petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) and all other conditions
shall remain intact.
7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CRLMC
stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
RKS
Location: High Court of Orissa
