The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that prolonged detention of seized vehicles without utility to the investigation violates the owner’s property rights and invites avoidable depreciation. In a significant ruling, the Court directed the immediate release of a tractor-trolley seized in an illegal sand mining case, emphasizing that judicial discretion under Section 451 CrPC must prioritize preservation of assets over indefinite police custody.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Niranjan Singh Paikra, is the registered owner of a tractor-trolley bearing Registration No. C.G.10/BD-5086, Chassis No. IVY5045DPLA020899, and Engine No. PY3029D607317. The vehicle was seized by the Police Station Kota (Police Chowki Belgahana), Bilaspur, in connection with Crime No. 617/2025, registered under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 4(1), 4(1-a), and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, for alleged illegal mining of sand at Nagoi Ghat of the Arpa River.
Key Facts
- The vehicle was seized on or before 15.11.2025, following the registration of Crime No. 617/2025
- The appellant filed an application under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking release of the vehicle on Supurdnama
- The Special Judge, Mines and Minerals Act, Bilaspur, rejected the application on 02.12.2025, holding that the vehicle was directly involved in the commission of the offence
- The appellant is the duly registered owner with valid documents of ownership
- The vehicle has remained in police custody since seizure, exposed to open weather conditions
- No allegation has been made that the appellant was driving the vehicle at the time of seizure
- The State conceded no objection to the appellant’s ownership but opposed release on grounds of deliberate removal of the number plate
Procedural History
- 15.11.2025: Vehicle seized by Police in Crime No. 617/2025
- 20.11.2025: Application under Section 497 BNSS filed for release on Supurdnama
- 02.12.2025: Special Judge rejected the application, citing involvement in illegal mining
- 09.01.2026: Notice issued by High Court for hearing
- 09.04.2026: Hearing concluded before the Division Bench
- 09.04.2026: Judgment delivered
Relief Sought
The appellant sought release of the seized tractor-trolley on Supurdnama, arguing that prolonged detention would cause irreparable damage due to weather exposure and that no useful purpose was served by keeping the vehicle in police custody pending trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a vehicle seized in connection with an offence under the Mines and Minerals Act can be denied release on Supurdnama solely on the ground of its alleged involvement in the crime, when the owner is not accused, ownership is undisputed, and continued custody risks irreversible depreciation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai v. State of Gujarat to argue that: (1) the owner’s right to property under Article 300A is not extinguished by seizure; (2) indefinite custody of vehicles in open police yards leads to natural decay; (3) Section 451 CrPC empowers courts to release seized property on bond if custody serves no investigative purpose; and (4) the vehicle’s condition is deteriorating, rendering it economically worthless.
For the Respondent
The State opposed release, contending that the vehicle was an instrumentality of the offence, the number plate had been deliberately removed, and its release might prejudice the investigation. The State argued that the Special Judge’s discretion under Section 497 BNSS should not be interfered with absent clear abuse.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai v. State of Gujarat. In Sunderbhai, the Court held that keeping seized vehicles idle in police stations serves no useful purpose and exposes them to damage, while also burdening the state with custody obligations. The Court emphasized that courts must act expeditiously to release such vehicles on appropriate bonds, ensuring their preservation and utility.
"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."
The Court noted that the appellant’s ownership was not disputed, and no allegation implicated him as the driver or operator of the vehicle at the time of seizure. The removal of the number plate, while concerning, did not negate the owner’s right to seek release under Section 497 BNSS. The Court further observed that the vehicle had been in custody for over four months, exposed to monsoon and extreme heat, risking irreversible mechanical and structural damage.
The Court held that the Special Judge erred in treating the vehicle’s involvement in the offence as an absolute bar to release. The law does not require the vehicle to be forfeited at the investigation stage. The Court affirmed that the power under Section 451 CrPC (now incorporated into BNSS) is discretionary but must be exercised with a view to prevent loss to the owner and conserve judicial and police resources.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The order dated 02.12.2025 rejecting the application for release was set aside. The tractor-trolley bearing Registration No. C.G.10/BD-5086 is directed to be handed over to the appellant immediately upon furnishing: (1) a personal bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial court; (2) a bank guarantee of Rs. 4,00,000/-; and (3) a written undertaking that the vehicle shall not be altered in condition, colour, or ownership, and shall be produced before the court or any competent authority upon demand. This interim custody order shall cease to operate upon final disposal of the criminal case or if confiscation is ordered.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Supurdnama Is Not a Right But a Recognized Remedy
- Practitioners may now invoke Sunderbhai Desai and Multani Kalubhai to argue for release of seized vehicles in all offences under the CrPC/BNSS framework, even where the vehicle is alleged to be an instrumentality of crime
- Ownership documentation and absence of accused status are decisive factors
- Courts must weigh the risk of depreciation against speculative investigative needs
Custody Must Be Justified, Not Automatic
- Police cannot retain seized vehicles indefinitely without judicial review
- The burden shifts to the State to demonstrate why prolonged custody is necessary
- Courts must record reasons for denial of release, not merely cite the nature of the offence
Procedural Safeguards Are Sufficient
- Personal bond and bank guarantee are adequate safeguards against non-appearance
- Undertakings against alteration or third-party transfer are enforceable
- Production clauses ensure availability for trial without physical detention
