Orissa High Court
Trailokyanath Panigrahi vs State Of Odisha …. Opposite Party on 30 June, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.633 of 2024
Trailokyanath Panigrahi .... Petitioner
Mr. M. Das, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
30.06.2025
Order I.A. No.1002 of 2024
No.
01. 1. Heard.
2. Instant petition is filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condoning delay in filing the revision.
3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
such delay which has occasioned in filing of the revision should
be condoned in the interest of justice as the challenge relates to
and for declining interim custody of the seizure vehicle in
favour of the petitioner.
4. Recorded the submission of Mr. Ray, learned AGA for
the State.
5. Considering the facts pleaded on record and accepting
the explanation offered towards delay, the Court is inclined to
condone the same.
Page 1 of 4
6. IA is accordingly disposed of condoning delay in filing
the revision.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
CRLREV No.633 of 2024
1. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the
impugned order dated 22nd June, 2024 passed in connection
with Criminal Misc. Case No.18 of 2024 by learned Special
Judge-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Balliguda,
whereby, an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking
release of the seizure motorcycle bearing Registration No.OD-
07-AH-1690 in his favour was declined on the grounds stated.
3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
learned court below even though has taken judicial notice of the
decision of the Apex Court in Union of India Vrs. Mohan Lal
(2016) 3 SCC 379 and Biren Prasad Nayak Vrs. State of
Odisha in Criminal Revision No.404 of 2020 declined release
of the seized motorcycle on the premise that the same is not
permissible in view of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. It is
claimed that the vehicle in question is lying within the PS
premises since 20th March, 2024 and likely to be damaged
being exposed to the vagaries of climatic conditions, hence,
therefore, it should be directed to be released as an interim
measure in favour of the petitioner subject to such conditions as
Page 2 of 4
deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
4. Recorded the objection of Mr. Ray, learned AGA for
the State.
5. An application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. as at
Annexure-3 has led to the passing of the impugned order i.e.
Annexure-4. Learned court below, as it appears, has declined
such release of the alleged vehicle involved in illicit
transportation of 20 Kgs of contraband Ganja referring to
Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. The said vehicle is a two
wheeler and it is claimed to be owned by the petitioner and
hence, the rightful claimant. In so far as the FIR i.e. Annexure-
1 is concerned, it reveals the involvement of the motorcycle
along with another vehicle intercepted by the local police
leading to the recovery of 20 Kgs of contraband Ganja. After a
proper reading the citations referred to hereinbefore, the law
appears to be well settled that any such seizure article including
conveyances, if not necessary for the purpose of investigation,
should immediately be released in the interim custody of the
claimants entitled to the same. The law is also well settled that
disposable or perishable items should not be detained at the PS
or with the Investigating Agency, if not required for
investigation or enquiry. In the case at hand, learned court
below declined such interim release in view of Section 52-A of
the NDPS Act. According to the Court, the said provision deals
with pre-trial inventory and disposal and is not a bar at all
against interim release of seizure motorcycle. In other words,
Page 3 of 4
the Court is of the view that the learned court below ought not
to have refused interim custody of the motorcycle in favour of
the petitioner, who claims himself as its owner instead should
have directed such release imposing suitable conditions.
6. Hence, it is ordered.
7. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 22nd June, 2024
passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.18 of 2024 by learned by
learned Special Judge-cum-Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Balliguda is hereby set aside with a direction for
immediate release of the seized motorcycle bearing
Registration No.OD-07-AH-1690 in favour of the petitioner as
an interim measure pending disposal of C.T. No.77 of 2024
corresponding to Daringbadi P.S. Case No.48 of 2024 only
after and upon verification of its ownership.
8. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per
rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC,CTC
Date: 02-Jul-2025 18:29:21 Page 4 of 4