[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Shrinibas Samantary @ vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party (S) on 6 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1006 of 2026
Shrinibas Samantary @ .... Petitioner(s)
Srinibas Samantaray Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi,
Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party (s)
Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
06.04.2026
Order No.
01.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC seeking a prayer to quash
the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Nayagarh in Criminal Revision No.01/10 of 2025-2024 vide
Annexure-2 and order dated 23.10.2024 passed in C.M.C. No.66 of 2024
passed by the learned JMFC, Ranpur under Annexure-1.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is
the owner of the vehicle i.e. Hero Glamour bearing Registration No.
OR-02BR-2305 having engine Number JA06EFBGH00267, Chassis No.
MBLJA06EUBGH00274. The Petitioner has filed an application under
Section 503 of the BNS which has been registered as C.M.C No. 66 of
2024 before the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur with a prayer to release the
vehicle in question in his favour. But, the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur vide
order dated 23.10.2024 rejected the same.
4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2024 passed in C.M.C.
No.66 of 2024 under Annexure-1, the Petitioner approached the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in Criminal Revision No.01/10 of
2025/2024. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh
vide order dated 04.07.2025 rejected the revision application by
affirming the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.,
Ranpur.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the judgement of the
Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of
Gujarat1. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: -
"The issue where confiscation proceedings in relation to a
vehicle are pending under Section 72 of the Excise Act on
the basis of a crime registered under the said Act, the
Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 451 of the
Cr.P.C. to release a seized vehicle pending investigation
or trial notwithstanding the pendency of confiscation
proceedings before the Collector was dealt with by
Allahabad High Court in Nand Vs. State of U.P 2
where it was held:
"7.I think it is not proper to allow the truck
to be damaged by remaining stationed at police
station. Admittedly, the ownership of the truck is
not disputed. The State of Uttar Pradesh does not
2002(10)SCC 283
1997(1) AWC 41
claim its ownership. Therefore, I think it will be
proper and in the larger interest of public as well
as the revisionist that the revisionist gives a Bank
guarantee of Rs. 2 lakhs before the C.J.M., Kanpur
Dehat and files a bond that he shall be producing
the truck as and when needed by the criminal
courts or the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat,
and he shall not make any changes nor any
variation in the truck."
6. This Court had an occasion earlier to decide the similar issue
involved in this case in the case of Ratnakar Behera-versus-State of
Odisha3. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: -
"11. Having considered the matter in the aforesaid
perspective and guided by the precedents cited hereinabove,
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
the prayer of the Petitioner on the following conditions:
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."
2020(II) OLR-767
7. He further contends that the Petitioner is not arrayed as an
accused in the instant case. Due to exposure of the vehicle in sun and
rain, its condition is deteriorating day by day. In view of the above, he
prays for release of the vehicle in question.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner and on going through the averments made in this petition,
this Court is inclined to quash the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in Criminal Revision
No.01/10 of 2025-2024 vide Annexure-2 and the order dated 23.10.2024
passed in C.M.C. No.66 of 2024 passed by the learned JMFC, Ranpur
under Annexure-1.
9. The learned JMFC, Ranpur is directed to release the above-said
seized vehicle in question in the zima of the petitioner subject to the
conditions that the petitioner shall;
i. Undertake not to change the appearance or colour of the
seized vehicle;
ii. Also undertake to ensure that the vehicle is not used for any
illegal purpose.;
iii. Undertake to produce the vehicle as and when required by
the court; and
iv. Obtain comprehensive insurance policy for the seized
vehicle every year.
10. The CRLMC stands disposed of, accordingly.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Gitanjali
