Chhattisgarh High Court upholds the established Supreme Court position that seized vehicles should not be kept in police custody for extended periods and may be released on supurdnama to registered owners, subject to safeguards. Clarifies that lower courts should follow binding authority laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai, reinforcing their precedential value in Mines and Minerals Act cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/1320/2025 of MANSHARAM KAIWART Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010452022025 |
| Date of Registration | 29-10-2025 |
| 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 for subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms decisions of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) and Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai v. State of Gujarat (2013) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 |
| Questions of Law | Whether courts should release seized vehicles used in alleged illegal mining on supurdnama to the registered owner pending final disposal of criminal proceedings? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that it is against the interests of justice and public purpose to retain seized vehicles in police custody for extended periods while trials are pending. Citing Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai, the court held that judicial officers must expeditiously decide applications for release of vehicles on supurdnama, with appropriate verification, security, and safeguards, to prevent loss or decay of valuable property. It is not advisable to keep seized vehicles in an open condition susceptible to natural decay, and courts should facilitate release to registered owners under suitable terms. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Legal and practical rationale that retaining vehicles for years in police custody leads to loss of value and public loss, per Supreme Court guidance. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The applicant’s trolley was seized by police on 16.06.2025, based on allegations of illegal sand transportation under Section 303(2), 3(5) BNS and Sections 4(1), 4(1)(A), 21 MMDR Act; applicant’s application for interim release was rejected; applicant is the registered owner; vehicle remained idle at police station; application for release on supurdnama was filed under Section 503 BNSS 2023. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, when dealing with interim custody of seized vehicles in criminal/mine-related offences |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that seized vehicles should not be left unused in police custody and must be released on supurdnama to the registered owner unless overriding circumstances justify refusal.
- Dependence on Supreme Court precedents makes such release the norm, not the exception, even in mining offences.
- Specifies minimum safeguards to be followed before release: verification of ownership, panchnama, photographs, personal bond and surety, and undertaking not to use for further illegality.
- Lower courts’ routine practice of retaining vehicles post-seizure is categorically discouraged.
- Useful authority for prompt applications seeking interim release of vehicles, even in complex regulatory offences.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the applicant’s challenge to the trial court’s refusal to release a seized vehicle pending proceedings under the MMDR Act.
- The Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncements in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai were cited and followed. Both held that retention of seized vehicles for long periods is unjustifiable and causes undue loss, recommending prompt release on supurdnama to the owner with proper safeguards.
- The High Court noted, by factual reference, that the applicant is the registered owner and that prolonged retention would cause unnecessary damage and depreciation to the vehicle.
- There was no demonstrated reason to refuse release, and in similar matters, vehicles are often left for years with no further action, underscoring the need for immediate relief.
- The judgment specified concrete conditions (ownership verification, bond, panchnama, photographs, personal surety, and non-misuse affidavit) to balance recovery/interests of justice with prevention of further illegality.
- The impugned rejection was thus set aside as contrary to binding legal principles, and interim custody (supurdnama) was granted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Trial Court erred in rejecting release of the vehicle on supurdnama, as the applicant is the registered owner.
- Vehicle has been idle since 16.06.2025 and risks deterioration; police custody serves no useful purpose.
- Sought release based on Supreme Court precedent (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai).
Respondent (State)
- Opposed the application for interim release of vehicle.
Factual Background
On 16.06.2025, the petitioner’s trolley was seized by police in connection with Crime No. 249/2025 under Section 303(2), 3(5) BNS and Sections 4(1), 4(1)(A), 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, on allegations of illegal sand transportation. The petitioner, registered owner of the vehicle, applied for interim custody (supurdnama) under Section 503 BNSS 2023, which was rejected by the Special Judge on 25.09.2025. The vehicle remained unused at the police station, prompting this revision petition.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 503 BNSS 2023: Relied upon as the enabling section for seeking interim custody of seized property, analogous to Section 451 CrPC. No detailed statutory interpretation, but the context mirrors jurisprudence under CrPC.
- Sections 4(1), 4(1)(A), 21 MMDR Act, and Section 303(2), 3(5) BNS: Invoked as offences in the FIR, but not subject to specific statutory analysis in the release context.
- The judgment did not elaborate on statutory distinctions but invoked Supreme Court authority for immediate release powers.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court ordered explicit safeguards—verification of ownership, panchnama, photographs, personal bond and surety, and affidavit—not as new law, but as clear procedural reiteration in line with binding precedent.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai) is affirmed and strictly applied.