Khilesh Kumar Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:48169

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 958 of 2025

¶6

1 - Khilesh Kumar Banjare S/o Dhanaram Banjare, Aged About 32 Years R/o Prabhu Sudan Ward No. 43 Safed Khadan N/r Vinayak Printers, Devrikhurd, Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶7

--- Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Masturi Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

--- Respondent(s)

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State	: Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate

¶12

CRR No. 1086 of 2025

¶13

1 - Prakash Kumar Sahu S/o Basant Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Village Meu, Maruti Chowk District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)

¶14

--- Petitioner(s)

¶15

Versus

¶16

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶17

--- Respondent(s)

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T. S. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate

¶19

Digitally signed by VED VED PRAKASH PRAKASH DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.22 10:32:54 +0530

¶20

2

¶21

CRR No. 961 of 2025

¶22

1 - Abhishek Sonkar S/o Late Arun Sonkar, Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 33, Nayapara Dayalband, Thana City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶23

--- Petitioner(s)

¶24

Versus

¶25

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶26

---- Respondent(s)

¶27

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶28

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Krishna Kumar Khatri, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State	: Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate

¶29

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board

¶30

18/09/2025

¶31

All these three petitions are arising out of from the same crime number, and therefore, all these petitions are being heard and decided together.

¶32

The CRR No. 958 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner- Khilesh Kumar Banjare against the order dated 17.07.2025, passed by learned Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Bilaspur in MJC (Criminal) No. 24 of 2025, whereby the application for grant of interim custody of Hyva Truck bearing registration No. CG 10 BX 6168 has been rejected.

¶33

The CRR No. 961 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner- Abhishek Sonkar against the order dated 25.07.2025, passed by learned Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957,

¶34

3

¶35

in MJC (Criminal) No. 45 of 2025, whereby the application for grant of interim custody of Hyva Truck bearing registration No. CG 10 AM 0342 has been rejected.

¶36

The CRR No. 1086 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner- Prakash Kumar Sahu against the order dated 17.07.2025, passed by learned Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in MJC (Criminal) No. 32 of 2025, whereby the application for grant of interim custody of Hyva Truck bearing registration No. CG 11 BJ 7032 has been rejected.

¶37

The subject matter in brief in all these three petitions are that, the petitioners are owner of the respective Hyva Trucks. On 16.06.2025, on being patrolling, these three Hyva Trucks, which were carrying sand have been seized by the patrolling party on the allegation that they are carrying sand without paying any royalty and it was being transported illegally. The said Hyva Trucks have been seized, offence of Crime No. 401 of 2025 under Sections 4(1), 4(1A) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 have been registered and charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Special Court.

¶38

The respective petitioners have filed their application for grant of interim custody of the said vehicles claiming that they being the owner of the said vehicles and by keeping in stationary condition of the said vehicles, it would decay and would be destroyed, therefore, the subject vehicles may be given them in interim custody during

¶39

4

¶40

pendency of the criminal case.

¶41

After hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 rejected the applications filed by the petitioners by the impugned orders, which are under challenge in the present criminal revisions.

¶42

Learned counsel for the respective petitioners would submit that they have engaged the drivers for plying the vehicles, but they were not in knowledge of the fact that they were carrying sand illegally. Their vehicles have been detained since 16.06.2025, by which they are suffering financially, as the vehicles are in hypothecation and they have to pay the huge amount of the fixed installments to the finance company. No purpose would be served, if the vehicles were lying in stationary condition in the police custody and its condition are deteriorating day by day by keeping it in an open place, and ultimately it would be destroyed, which would cause a national loss. They would rely upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “ Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat ” (2002) 10 SCC 283 and prayed for interim custody of the vehicles during the pendency of the criminal case.

¶43

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned order and opposed the claim of the petitioners and would submit that the subject vehicles were involved in illegal activities of carrying sand and looking to the present scenario and increasing the such type of activities of illegal mining of sand and its transportation, their vehicles should be kept in stationary condition,

¶44

5

¶45

and they are not entitled for grant of interim custody. He would further submit that their vehicles are liable to be confiscated, and thus, there is no merit in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶46

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petitions.

¶47

Section 497 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) provides order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases, which reads as under:-

¶48

“497. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. —

¶49

(1) When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit Crr 780 of 2024 for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

¶50

Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "property" includes -

¶51

(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody;

¶52

(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

¶53

6

¶54

(2) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of fourteen days from the production of the property referred to in sub-section (1) before it, prepare a statement of such property containing its description in such form and manner as the State Government may, by rules, provide.

¶55

(3) The Court or the Magistrate shall cause to be taken the photograph and if necessary, videograph on mobile phone or any electronic media, of the property referred to in sub-section (1).

¶56

(4) The statement prepared under sub-section (2) and the photograph or the videography taken under sub-section (3) shall be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Sanhita.

¶57

(5) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of thirty days after the statement has been prepared under sub-section (2) and the photograph or the videography has been taken under sub-section (3), order the disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery of the property in the manner specified hereinafter.

¶58

In the matter of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai” (supra), it has been held that:-

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

¶62

7

¶63

3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, 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 the properly in detail; and

¶64

4. 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.

¶65

17. 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.

¶66

21. However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly.

¶67

Similarly, in the matter of “ Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai v. State of Gujrat and another ” (2013) 3 SCC 240, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the Police Station in an open condition, which is prone to natural decay on account of weather conditions for a long period.

¶68

8

¶69

Applying the aforesaid principles to the case in hand, the order impugned rejecting the application filed by respective owners of the vehicles for interim custody cannot be held sustainable, therefore, the same is accordingly set-aside.

¶70

Consequently, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and following the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the petitioners are the registered owners of the respective vehicles and it is of no use to keep the seized vehicles at the police station for a long time, it is directed that the vehicles shall be released to the respective petitioners (owners) on the following conditions:-

¶71

(i) The petitioners shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Fifty lakhs) with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Bilaspur.

¶72

(ii) The petitioners must satisfy the Court that they are the registered owners of the respective offending vehicles and the vehicles are having all requisite documents including live insurance certificates.

¶73

(iii) The petitioners shall not transfer or dispose of the offending vehicles to any one else and shall not make any change in its body, colour or engine. It is needless to say that make, colour, chassis number, and engine number of the offending vehicles shall be furnished by the petitioners before the trial Court with an undertaking that no damage shall be caused or no part of the vehicles be substituted.

¶74

(iv) The petitioners shall also file an undertaking before the trial Court that the offending vehicles shall not be used for commission of offence; and before giving interim custody of the offending vehicles to the petitioners, three coloured photographs of cabinet size from different angels clearly indicating

¶75

9

¶76

registration number and other particulars of the vehicles shall be kept on file. The expenses for the photographs shall be borne by the petitioners.

¶77

(v) The petitioners shall produce vehicle either before this Court or before the Collector or such authorities as it may be directed, on their own expenses.

¶78

(vi) The subject vehicles shall not be involved in similar nature of offence in future.

¶79

Accordingly, the present criminal revisions are allowed and the impugned orders are hereby set aside.

¶80

Sd/-

¶81

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶82

ved

Khilesh Kumar Banjare v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khilesh Kumar Banjare v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathura Gir Vs State of Chhattisgarh

V. Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

S. Shakti Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chandrabhan Gendley Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhishek Sonkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Meera Pandey @ Uma Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh