Allowed

Ramdas v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jul 2025CRA/798/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Diminish appeal against rejection of application for interim custody of a seized motorcycle. Court relied on Supreme Court precedents regarding vehicle seizure and natural decay, allowed appeal, and directed release of vehicle upon furnishing security.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 10.02.2025 set aside; motorcycle released to appellant on security of Rs. 1,00,000 and undertaking.

Ramdas Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Anticipatory Bail | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.07.09 17:30:47 +0530

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 798 of 2025

¶6

Ramdas S/o Harinandan Aged About 55 Years R/o Schoolpara, Village Sahanpur, Post Bataikela, Sitapur District Surguja (C.G.)

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶10

2. Jaikumar Yadav S/o Ramdas Aged About 21 Years Caste Bargah, R/o Sahanpur, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja C.G.

¶11

3. Purshottam Yadav Alias Bholu S/o Satnarayan Aged About 22 Years Caste Ahir, R/o Sahanpur, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja C.G.

¶12

4. Neeraj Agariya S/o Kamlu Agariya Aged About 22 Years Caste S T, R/o Sahanpur, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja C.G.

¶13

5. Ajay Basod Alias Dhemna S/o Kalpnath Basod Aged About 21 Years R/o Sahanpur, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja C.G.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Appellant : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, P.L.

¶16

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

08.07.2025

¶20

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section u/s 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) being aggrieved of the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) whereby the application filed by the appellant for interim custody of the seized vehicle i.e. Hero HF Deluxe registration No. CG 14 MA 7509 has been rejected.

¶21

2. The above vehicle was seized from accused Jai Kumar Yadav by the Police on 23.04.2024 in connection with Crime No.122/2024 registered at Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja for the offence under Section 376D IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of ST/ST Act. An application was moved by the present appellant who is the father of accused Jai Kumar Yadav and registered owner, for releasing the seized vehicle on Supurdnama which was rejected by the Special Judge (Atrocities) Surguja, Ambikapur vide order dated 10.02.2025 leading to the filing of this appeal. The said application was rejected by the Special Judge on the ground that the vehicle was actively used during the incident and it may be required during prosecution evidence.

¶22

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the registered owner of the said vehicle and he is not an accused in Crime No.122/2024. The appellant has valid and effective documents required for the said vehicle to be released on Supurdnama. He further submits that the seized vehicle is kept for a long time idle in the Police Station, there is danger of it being damaged by vagaries of weather and no useful purpose would be served by detaining the vehicle in the police station till the trial is concluded, therefore, it is prayed that the seized motorcycle may be released on Supurdnama.

¶24

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned order.

¶25

5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection.

¶26

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 , in para 7 and 17 has laid down guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by Police. For ready reference, the relevant portion is reproduced below:-

¶27

"7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:

¶28

i. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

¶29

ii. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

¶30

¶31

iii. if proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepare, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of property in detail; and

¶32

iv. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

¶33

In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police station 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.

¶34

This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles."

¶35

7. Similar stand has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, reported in 2013 (3) SCC 240 , wherein the Supreme Court has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the Police Station in open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of whether conditions for a long period.

¶36

8. Recently in the matter of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can proved that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner’s knowledge and has held in para 25 as under:-

¶37

Upon a reading of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view that the seized vehicles can be confiscated by the trial court only on conclusion of the trial when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged.

¶38

¶39

Further, even where the court is of the view that the vehicle is liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity of hearing to the person who may claim any right to the seized vehicle before passing an order of confiscation. However, the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner's knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the seized vehicle by the accused person.

¶40

9. In the instant case, it is pertinent to mention that there has no objection to the ownership of the appellant. The appellant is not accused in this case. He is the father of Jai Kumar Yadav, one of the accused. It is also necessary to note that no useful purpose would be served if the said vehicle is allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the said vehicle can be released to the appellant, who is claiming himself to be the owner of the vehicle, so that he can use it and the said vehicle does not become junk after some time. It is also pertinent to mention here that in this case, it is found that the said vehicle is left for natural decay for a long period of time and no substantive action has been taken and the said vehicle is still left for irreparable damages. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai

¶41

Ambalal Desai (Supra), Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai (Supra)

¶42

and Bishwajit Dey (Supra), the instant appeal is allowed and the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the learned Special

¶43

¶44

Judge (Atrocities), Surguja (Ambikapur) in Crime No. 122/2024 is hereby set aside.

¶45

10. Accordingly, it is directed that the motorcycle i.e. Hero HF Deluxe registration No.CG 14 MA 7509, Engine No. HA11ENJGG22948, Chassis No. MBLHAR20XJGG23431 be immediately released in favour of the appellant as an interim custody on the condition that the appellant would furnish a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as Supurdnama in the concerned Trial Court. He shall give an undertaking that he shall not change the ownership of the vehicle nor shall he change the colour of the vehicle neither shall he create a third party right or interest over the said vehicle. He shall also undertake that he shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court during trial. He shall further undertake to produce the vehicle to any competent authority under any other statutes as and when required.

¶46

11. With the aforesaid observation/directions, the present appeal stands allowed .

¶47

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶48

Khatai

Ramdas v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdas v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chotu Alias Shrawan Kumar Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Juvenile in Conflict With Law Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Subham Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satyanarayan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Kosle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kailash Barle Vs State of Chhattisgarh