Orissa High Court
Shyam Sundar Behera vs State Of Odisha …. Opposite Party on 6 March, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.111 of 2025
Shyam Sundar Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER No. 06.03.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. In this Criminal Revision Petition (CRLREV), the
petitioner challenges the order dated 27.01.2025, passed by
the learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Phulbani, Kandhamal in Criminal Misc. Case No. 29 of 2024,
arising out of C.T. Case No. 129 of 2024, which corresponds
to Phiringia P.S. Case No.156 of 2024 wherein the learned
District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Phulbani,
Kandhamal has rejected the petitioner’s application under
Section 503 of the BNSS, 2023 for the interim release of his
seized vehicle, a Bolero Maxi Truck Plus bearing Registration
No. OD-02 AJ-5198.
Page 1 of 6
3. Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned
Counsel for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, although
the petitioner is not an accused in connection with Phiringia
P.S. Case No.156 of 2024, corresponding to C.T. Case No.129
of 2024, registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(B)(C) of the NDPS
Act, the petitioner’s vehicle has been seized on allegations
that it was used for the transportation of 13 kg of Ganja. It is
further contended that the vehicle had been rented out by
the petitioner, and at no point was he aware that it was being
used for the transportation of 13 kg of Ganja.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is the
rightful owner of the vehicle and relies on it as his sole
means of livelihood. It is emphasized that the vehicle has
been detained at the Phiringia Police Station, Phulbani, for
over a year, exposed to natural elements, resulting in
potential deterioration. Counsel contends that the lower
court rejected the application for interim release solely on the
ground of ownership, without due consideration of the
petitioner’s lack of involvement in the alleged offense.
6. Learned counsel for the State contends that, since the
petitioner’s vehicle was allegedly used for the transportation
of 13 kg of Ganja and subsequently seized by the Excise
Page 2 of 6
Police, the lower court rightly rejected the petitioner’s
application under Section 503 of the BNSS. The State argues
that the vehicle’s involvement in the offense justifies its
continued detention.
7. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and a
thorough examination of the materials on record, it is
evident that the petitioner is the rightful registered owner of
the seized vehicle. The said vehicle has remained in the
custody of the Excise Office for over a year, exposed to the
harsh elements of nature, including sun, rain, and fluctuating
weather conditions, thereby subjecting it to progressive
deterioration and inevitable depreciation. A vehicle, by its
very nature, is meant for active use and mobility, and its
prolonged immobilization in official custody serves no
meaningful legal or practical purpose.
8. If left unattended for an indefinite period, the vehicle is
bound to suffer structural damage, mechanical wear, and a
significant reduction in its functional and economic value,
rendering it unfit for future use. The law does not mandate
the indefinite retention of property when its custody does
not serve the ends of justice. Instead, the guiding principle
has always been that seized property should be safeguarded
and preserved, rather than unnecessarily wasted.
Page 3 of 6
9. A wealth of judicial precedents has consistently affirmed
that the prolonged retention of seized vehicles in police
custody serves no practical purpose and instead leads to
their gradual deterioration and depreciation. In this regard,
the Supreme Court, in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of
Gujarat1, emphatically held as follows:
“In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to
keep such seized vehicles at the police stations 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.”
10. Likewise, in the recent case of Bishwajit Dey v. The State
of Assam2, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of
whether a vehicle can be retained in police custody for an
extended period during the pendency of trial. The Court
held as follows:
“This Court is also of the view that if the Vehicle in the
present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till
the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This Court takes
judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in
the open. Consequently, if the Vehicle is not released during
the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the
weather, its value will only reduce.”
1
(2002) 10 SCC 283.
2
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13370/2024.
Page 4 of 6
11. Accordingly, the CRLREV is disposed of directing the
court in seisin over the matter to release the above seized
vehicle in the zima of the Petitioner subject to the conditions
that the Petitioner:
(i) The Petitioner shall produce the original
registration certificate, insurance paper before the
concerned Police Station which shall be verified
properly and true attested copies thereof shall be
retained by the I.O/IIC of the concerned Police
Station.;
(ii) The Petitioner shall not change the colour or any
part of the engine and chassis number of the
vehicle;
(iii) The Petitioner shall furnish two photographs of the
vehicle before taking delivery of the same;
(iv) The Petitioner shall not transfer the ownership of
the vehicle in favour of any other person;
(v) The Petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the
Court as and when called upon;
(vi) The Petitioner shall not allow the vehicle to be used
in the commission of any offence; and
(vii) The Petitioner shall furnish property/cash security
of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakh only).
Page 5 of 6
12. In case of violation of any of the conditions by the
Petitioner, this order shall not be applicable.
13. The CRLREV is accordingly disposed of.
14. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Sumitra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 10-Mar-2025 18:04:16
Page 6 of 6
[ad_1]
Source link