Orissa High Court
Rosi Bibi vs State Of Odisha …. Opposite Party on 1 July, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.496 of 2022
Rosi Bibi .... Petitioner
Mr. P.R. Chhatoi, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
01.07.2025
Order
No.
03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the
correctness of the impugned order dated 10th October, 2022
passed in connection Criminal Misc. Case No.97 of 2022 by
learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar
corresponding to T.R. Case No.349 of 2021, whereby, an
application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking release of
interim custody of the seizure vehicle bearing Registration
No.OD-33-U-7303 in his favour has been declined.
3. Perused the FIR as at Annexure-1, a case under
Sections 21(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act has been registered in
connection with the alleged incident.
Page 1 of 4
4. Mr. Chhatoi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is not an accused. It is further submitted that
the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner was denied
once before and it was followed by the impugned order dated
10th October, 2022 at Annexure-3 on the ground that the same
is involved in a case registered under the NDPS Act. The
submission is that interim release of the seizure vehicle should
be directed immediately otherwise it would be damaged due to
vagaries of the climatic conditions.
5. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the State, on the other
hand, objects to the release of the seizure vehicle as the same
was involved in illicit transportation of contraband substance of
commercial quantity. Furthermore, the impugned order at
Annexure-3 is justified on the ground that learned court below
rightly declined to exercise the revisional jurisdiction, since the
earlier revision was disposed of having been moved by the
petitioner.
6. Admittedly, the vehicle in question has been seized as
made to reveal from Annexure-2, a copy of the seizure list. The
said seizure has taken place in the year 2021. Mr. Chhatoi,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no purpose
would be served with detention of the alleged vehicle and
hence, it should have been released in the interim custody of
the petitioner, who is the rightful claimant being the owner but
it has been denied vide Annexure-3. From the FIR i.e.
Page 2 of 4
Annexure-1, the Court finds that commercial quantity of Brown
sugar was seized from the accused involved and the vehicle in
question was recovered from him leading to the seizure as per
Annexure-2. It is claimed that the investigation must have been
over long back as the alleged incident is of 2021. Being alive
to the legal position regarding disposal of seizure articles
including conveyances in view of the direction issued by the
Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vrs. State of
Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 besides a recent one in Bishwajit
Dey Vrs. The State of Assam in Special Leave Petition
Criminal No.13370 of 2024, the Court is of the humble view
that the seizure vehicle should not be allowed to continue lying
at the PS premises as it is unlikely to serve any purpose
especially when investigation must have been over long before.
Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court regarding
any such need and necessity for the detention of the seizure
vehicle. The Court under the impression that the investigation
to be over as the FIR i.e. Annexure-1 is of the year 2021, as the
vehicle though involved in the transportation of commercial
quantity of Brown sugar lying in custody of the local police and
since the petitioner has approached for taking custody of the
same as an interim measure, the Court does not find any
justifiable reason to deny the same and therefore, to hold that
the impugned order dated 8th July, 2022 i.e. Annexure-2 of the
learned court below is liable to be interfered with followed by
consequential directions issued.
Page 3 of 4
7. Accordingly, it is ordered.
8. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a
necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 10th October,
2022 at Annexure-3 passed in connection Criminal Misc. Case
No.97 of 2022 by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhubaneswar corresponding to T.R. Case No.349 of 2021 is
hereby set aside with a direction to immediately release the
seizure vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-33-U-7303 in
favour of the petitioner subject to verification as to the
ownership of the same and by imposing suitable conditions as
deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Page 4 of 4
Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC,CTC
Date: 02-Jul-2025 19:21:12