Can Seized Vehicles Allegedly Used for Illegal Mining Be Released on Supurdnama Pending Trial? — Affirmation of Supreme Court Precedent as Binding Authority

The High Court reiterates that seized vehicles, even in cases of alleged illegal sand transportation, should not be left to deteriorate in police custody, and directs their release on interim custody (Supurdnama) to the registered owner, provided adequate safeguards are ensured. This judgment strictly follows Supreme Court precedent and is binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction.

 

Summary

Category Data
Case Name CRR/1311/2025 of RAMDULARI NISHAD Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
CNR CGHC010455132025
Date of Registration 28-10-2025
Decision Date 30-10-2025
Disposal Nature ALLOWED
Judgment Author HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA
Court High Court Of Chhattisgarh
Precedent Value Binding within Chhattisgarh (High Court judgment following Supreme Court precedent)
Overrules / Affirms Affirms the ratio of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) and Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai v. State of Gujarat (2013)
Type of Law Criminal Procedure — Custody/Release of Seized Property
Questions of Law Whether a vehicle seized for allegedly being used in illegal mining can be released on interim custody (supurdnama) to the registered owner pending conclusion of trial.
Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that retaining seized vehicles in police custody for long periods serves no useful purpose, as prolonged idleness leads to decay and loss of value. The proper course, as reiterated by the Supreme Court, is to release such vehicles to registered owners on supurdnama after verifying ownership, preparing a panchnama, and obtaining adequate security. There was no compelling reason presented for denying interim release in the present case. Therefore, the rejection by the lower court was set aside, and directions for conditional release were issued.

Judgments Relied Upon
  • Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283
  • Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai v. State of Gujarat (2013) 3 SCC 240
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court It is undesirable to let vehicles decay in police custody; interim custody safeguards the owner’s interest and does not impede the trial if proper conditions are imposed, per Supreme Court guidance.
Facts as Summarised by the Court The applicant’s tractor and trolley were seized by police in connection with illegal sand transportation offenses. The applicant, as registered owner, sought interim release under Section 503 BNSS 2023, which was rejected by the special court.

Practical Impact

Category Impact
Binding On All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh
Persuasive For Other High Courts
Follows
  • Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002)
  • Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai v. State of Gujarat (2013)

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

  • Affirms that vehicles seized for alleged illegal mining must not be left in police custody for prolonged periods and should generally be released to the registered owner on supurdnama, in line with Supreme Court directions.
  • Specifies procedural safeguards for interim release, including verification of ownership, preparation of panchnama, adequate security/bond, and undertakings against further illegal use.
  • Clarifies that mere pendency of confiscation or criminal proceedings is not a bar to such interim release when proper safeguards are imposed.
  • Lawyers should robustly cite this precedent when seeking similar relief for clients whose vehicles are seized, especially in mining or allied regulatory offenses.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

  • The Court examined the position established by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, which directed that powers under Section 451 CrPC (analogous to Section 503 BNSS 2023) be exercised expeditiously to avoid unnecessary hardship to owners and wasteful preservation by authorities.
  • Further reliance was placed on Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai, reinforcing the principle that seized vehicles should not remain idle in police custody due to risks of natural decay.
  • The Court determined that, since the applicant had established ownership and there was no compelling reason cited by the State for continued retention, interim release was warranted with suitable conditions: verification of documents, panchnama, photographs, a bond and surety, and an undertaking not to use the vehicle for further illegal activities.
  • The refusal by the special court was found unsustainable in law, as it contravened these established principles without justification.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

  • Trial court erred in denying interim custody as the applicant is the registered owner.
  • Seized vehicle kept idle since 16.06.2025 risks rusting/decay; no benefit in retaining it with police.
  • Supreme Court precedents direct prompt release of such vehicles to prevent loss and misuse.

Respondent (State)

  • Opposed release of vehicle on supurdnama (no further reasons specified in the judgment).

Factual Background

The applicant’s tractor and trolley were seized by Chakarbhata Police on 16.06.2025 on allegations of illegal transportation of sand, invoking sections of the BNS and Mines and Minerals Regulation Act, 1957. The applicant, as the registered owner, applied for interim custody of the seized vehicles under Section 503 of BNSS 2023. This application was rejected by the Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, leading to the present revision before the High Court.

Statutory Analysis

  • Section 503 of BNSS 2023 (analogous to Section 451 CrPC): Empowers courts to make orders regarding custody and interim release of seized property.
  • The judgment follows a broad and practical interpretation, as outlined in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, to prevent unnecessary hardship, avoid loss of value, and ensure procedural safeguards.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.

Procedural Innovations

  • Specifies stepwise procedural directions for interim release: verification of ownership documents, preparation of panchnama, photographic evidence, and imposition of a personal bond and surety of Rs. 6,00,000/-, with an affidavit not to use the vehicle for illegal sand transport.

Alert Indicators

  • ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court guidelines strictly adhered to

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

No comments to show.