Chattisgarh High Court
Darbaru Baiga vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 July, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM SINGH
SINGH RAGHUVANSHI
RAGHUVANSHI Date:
2025.07.15
12:45:30 +0530
2025:CGHC:32534
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 756 of 2025
Darbaru Baiga S/o Budannu Baiga Aged About 51 Years R/o- Ward
No. 6 Village- Patana Kala, Thana- Chachai, Tahsil And District-
Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh)
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana Gaurela, District- Gaurela-
Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Krishna Kumar Khatri,
Advocate
For State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
14.07.2025
1. The applicant has been preferred this instant case under
Section 397 of Cr.P.C. R/w Section 51 of NDPS Act being
aggrieved by the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the learned
4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby the
2
learned Judge had rejected the application filed by the applicant
for interim custody of seized vehicle.
2. The case in nutshell is that, on 16.01.2025, information was
received through an informant that a white Swift Dzire vehicle
bearing registration number CG 10-X-9615, was illegally
transporting narcotic substance (Ganja) from Balangir, Odisha
to Raigarh via Bilaspur-Belgahna, and they were being piloted by
Basant Baiga and Hazrat Ali in another vehicle, Brezza car
bearing registration number MP18-ZD-6287, heading from
Gorela towards Anuppur. Upon receiving this information, a raid
was conducted and on the same day, the above-named accused
persons were found near village Jobatola, Bhanwarntak Road,
Dhampathra, illegally transporting a total of 73.500 kilograms
of Ganja in vehicle number CG 10-X-9615, and it was found that
they were being piloted by vehicle number MP18-ZD-6287.
Accordingly, action was taken against the said accused persons
and they were arrested. The applicant is the owner of the said
vehicle and Basant Baiga who was being piloted in another
vehicle, Brezza car bearing registration number MP18-ZD-6287
is the son of the applicant. The applicant herein had filed an
application before the learned trial Court for taking
Supurdnama of the said vehicle but the said application was
rejected by the learned trial Court. Hence, this revision.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
the registered owner of the seized vehicle (MP18-ZD-6287) and
he is having a valid and effective documents required for the
3
said article, therefore, he is entitled for the Supurdnama. He
next submits that he was not involved in the crime in question
and his vehicle was allegedly used as piloting vehicle by his son
Basant Baiga. Neither any seizure has been made by his vehicle
nor his vehicle was involved in any crime in past. He further
submits that the seized vehicle is kept for a long time idle in the
police station, there are danger of it being damaged by vagaries
of weather and no useful purpose would be served by detaining
the vehicle in the police station till the trial is concluded,
therefore, it is prayed that the seized car may be released on
Supurdnama.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes
the submission made by learned counsel for the Applicant and
supported the impugned order.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
submission made by counsel for the parties and further
considering the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat,
reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, in para 7 and 17 has laid
down guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by
police. For Chhateady reference, the relevant portion is
reproduced below:-
4
“7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC
should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It
would serve various purposes, namely:
i. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its
remaining unused or by its misappropriation;
ii. court or the police would not be required to keep the
article in safe custody;
iii. if proper panchnama before handing over possession
of the article is prepare, that can be used in evidence
instead of its production before the court during the trial.
If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing
the nature of property in detail; and
iv. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should
be exercised promptly so that there may not be further
chance of tampering with the articles.
17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use
to keep such seized vehicles at the police station for a
long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate
orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and
guarantee as well as security for return of the said
vehicles, if required at any point of time.
This can be done pending hearing of applications for
return of such vehicles.”
7. Similar stand has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the
case of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat &
Another, reported in 2013 (3) SCC 240, wherein the Supreme
Court has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized
vehicle in the Police Station in open condition which is prone to
natural decay on account of whether conditions for a long
period.
8. Recently in the matter of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam,
reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if
the owner of the seized vehicle can proved that the vehicle was
5
used by the accused person without the owner’s knowledge and
has held in para 25 as under:-
25. Upon a reading of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the
view that the seized vehicles can be confiscated by the
trial court only on conclusion of the trial when the
accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. Further,
even where the court is of the view that the vehicle is
liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity of
hearing to the person who may claim any right to the
seized vehicle before passing an order of confiscation.
However, the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if
the owner of the seized vehicle can prove that the vehicle
was used by the accused person without the owner’s
knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all
reasonable precautions against such use of the seized
vehicle by the accused person.
9. In this case, it is pertinent to note that the applicant’s
ownership of the vehicle bearing Registration No. MP18-ZD-
6287 is undisputed. There was no seizure made by the said
vehicle and it is also not stated whether this vehicle has been
seized in any crime in the past. Furthermore, as stated, the
vehicle was used in the crime in question as piloting vehicle. It
is also necessary to note that no useful purpose would be served
if the said vehicle is allowed to get exposed in the extreme
weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the said vehicle
can be released to the applicant, who is claiming himself to be
the owner of the article, so that he can use it and the said
vehicle does not become junk after some time. It is also
pertinent to mention here that in this case, it is found that the
said vehicle is left for natural decay for a long period of time and
no substantive action has been taken and the said vehicle is still
left for irreparable damages. Considering the facts and
6
circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai (Supra), Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai (Supra)
and Bishwajit Dey (Supra), the instant revision is allowed and
the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the learned 4th Additional
Session Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Crime No. 14/2025 is hereby
set aside.
10. In view of the above, it is directed that the said vehicle
immediately be released in favour of the Applicant as an interim
custody on the following condition that the Applicant would
furnish a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- with one surety as
Supurdnama in the concerned Trial Court, keeping in view that
there must not be any alteration in the physical appearance of
the said article. It is also pertinent that the said vehicle shall be
submitted by the Applicant itself on its own cost, if need so
arises.
11. With the aforesaid observation/directions, the present revision
is allowed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Shubham