Chattisgarh High Court
Ramdas vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 July, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.07.09
17:30:47 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 798 of 2025
Ramdas S/o Harinandan Aged About 55 Years R/o
Schoolpara, Village Sahanpur, Post Bataikela, Sitapur
District Surguja (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police
Station Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.)
2. Jaikumar Yadav S/o Ramdas Aged About 21 Years Caste
Bargah, R/o Sahanpur, Police Station Sitapur, District
Surguja C.G.
3. Purshottam Yadav Alias Bholu S/o Satnarayan Aged About
22 Years Caste Ahir, R/o Sahanpur, Police Station Sitapur,
District Surguja C.G.
4. Neeraj Agariya S/o Kamlu Agariya Aged About 22 Years
Caste S T, R/o Sahanpur, Police Station Sitapur, District
Surguja C.G.
5. Ajay Basod Alias Dhemna S/o Kalpnath Basod Aged About
21 Years R/o Sahanpur, Police Station Sitapur, District
Surguja C.G.
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, P.L.
2
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
08.07.2025
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section u/s
14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”)
being aggrieved of the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by
learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.)
whereby the application filed by the appellant for interim
custody of the seized vehicle i.e. Hero HF Deluxe registration
No. CG 14 MA 7509 has been rejected.
2. The above vehicle was seized from accused Jai Kumar Yadav
by the Police on 23.04.2024 in connection with Crime
No.122/2024 registered at Police Station Sitapur, District
Surguja for the offence under Section 376D IPC and Section
3(2)(v) of ST/ST Act. An application was moved by the
present appellant who is the father of accused Jai Kumar
Yadav and registered owner, for releasing the seized vehicle
on Supurdnama which was rejected by the Special Judge
(Atrocities) Surguja, Ambikapur vide order dated 10.02.2025
leading to the filing of this appeal. The said application was
rejected by the Special Judge on the ground that the vehicle
was actively used during the incident and it may be required
during prosecution evidence.
3
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
is the registered owner of the said vehicle and he is not an
accused in Crime No.122/2024. The appellant has valid and
effective documents required for the said vehicle to be
released on Supurdnama. He further submits that the seized
vehicle is kept for a long time idle in the Police Station, there
is 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 motorcycle may be released on
Supurdnama.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes
the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant
and supported the impugned order.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection.
6. 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 ready reference,
the relevant portion is reproduced below:-
“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;
4
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 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.
5
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 the instant case, it is pertinent to mention that there has
no objection to the ownership of the appellant. The appellant
is not accused in this case. He is the father of Jai Kumar
Yadav, one of the accused. 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
appellant, who is claiming himself to be the owner of the
vehicle, 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
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 appeal is allowed and
the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the learned Special
6
Judge (Atrocities), Surguja (Ambikapur) in Crime No.
122/2024 is hereby set aside.
10. Accordingly, it is directed that the motorcycle i.e. Hero HF
Deluxe registration No.CG 14 MA 7509, Engine No.
HA11ENJGG22948, Chassis No. MBLHAR20XJGG23431 be
immediately released in favour of the appellant as an interim
custody on the condition that the appellant would furnish a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as Supurdnama in the concerned Trial
Court. He shall give an undertaking that he shall not change
the ownership of the vehicle nor shall he change the colour of
the vehicle neither shall he create a third party right or
interest over the said vehicle. He shall also undertake that he
shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court
during trial. He shall further undertake to produce the vehicle
to any competent authority under any other statutes as and
when required.
11. With the aforesaid observation/directions, the present appeal
stands allowed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai
[ad_1]
Source link