Dismissed¶5

Jugendra Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC28 Jun 2026WPCR/341/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed — refusal of supurdnama/interim custody of unseized vehicle upheld: FIR for Crime No. 32/2026 (P.S. Kota, 12-01-2026) names Tractor CG-10-D-8265 in the accident, not petitioner's Tractor CG-10-D-8162; no seizure, so release on supurdnama cannot arise; registration still in respondent's (Sanjeey Madliyar) name despite petitioner's purchase agreement (Rs. 3,00,000/- consideration). Keywords: WPCR 341/2026; JMFC Kota M.J.C. 49/2026 order dated 03-06-2026 upheld; vehicle detention/release; ownership-registration mismatch.

What did the court decide?

Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 03-06-2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota. ¶5

Jugendra Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be allowed and the order passed by J.M.F.C. Kota in M.J.C. No. 49/2026 set aside, with directions to S.H.O. Kota through S.P. Bilaspur to release Tractor CG-10-D-8162 in favour of the petitioner. +1 more

¶10.1

Court's answer

Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 03-06-2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

As per the FIR, tractor CG-10-D-8265 is said to be involved in the accident; therefore the petitioner's claim for interim custody/supurdnama of Tractor CG-10-D-8162 in connection with Crime No. 32/2026 is not sustainable.

¶5

Key takeaways

In the absence of any seizure of the tractor, the question of releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama does not arise.ratio¶5
The petitioner himself states that the tractor remains registered in the name of Sanjeey Madliyar and has not been registered in the petitioner's name.ratio¶5
The learned trial Court rightly rejected the petitioner's application and no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), WPCR No. 341 of 2026, decided 29-06-2026 (Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.; bench incl. Hon'ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge) — dismissed. Petitioner Jugendra Baghel sought to set aside the JMFC Kota order dated 03-06-2026 in M.J.C. No. 49/2026 refusing interim custody/supurdnama of his Tractor CG-10-D-8162 parked at P.S. Kota, claiming he had bought it from registered owner respondent No. 4 Sanjeey Madliyar (agreed consideration Rs. 3,00,000/-; Rs. 2,50,000/- paid, Rs. 50,000/- balance). Crime No. 32/2026 arose from an FIR dated 12-01-2026 by Charanjeet Jaiswal over an accident between Tractor CG-10-D-8265 and Bullet Motorcycle CG-10-CA-6801 injuring Ramchandra Jaiswal; the FIR named CG-10-D-8265, not the petitioner's CG-10-D-8162, and no seizure of the latter was recorded. Holding: no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order; the claim for the uninvolved, unseized tractor is unsustainable and, absent seizure, release on supurdnama cannot arise; title remains registered in Madliyar's name; the trial Court rightly rejected the application.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed byMOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.06.30 13:52:40 +0530

¶3

NAFR

¶4

2026:CGHC:26234-DB

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPCR No. 341 of 2026

¶7

1 - Jugendra Baghel S/o Uttam Das Baghel, Aged About 29 Years, P.S. Kota, Tahsil - Sakari District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.)

¶11

2 - The Superintendent of Police Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Station House Officer, Kota, P.S. Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Sanjeey Madliyar S/o Kanappa Mudliyar, Aged About 42 Years, Caste- Kshatriya, R/o Mohanbhata, Tahsil Sakari, P.S. Kota, DistrictBilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate. For State-Respondents : Mr. N.K. Jaaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

¶20

29-06-2026

¶21

¶22

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following relief(s):-

¶23

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ petition filed by the petitioner and be pleased to set aside the order passed by J.M.F.C. Kota in M.J.C. No. 49/2026 and the direction be also given to S.H.O. Kota through S.P. Bilaspur to release the vehicle in the favour of the petitioner.

¶24

10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03-06-2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District Bilaspur, in M.J.C. No. 49/2026, whereby the petitioner's application for release of Tractor bearing Registration No. CG-10-D-8162 on Supurdnama was rejected. It has been further submitted that Crime No. 32/2026 was registered at Police Station Kota on the basis of an FIR dated 12-01-2026 lodged by Charanjeet Jaiswal regarding a road accident involving Tractor bearing Registration No. CG-10-D-8265 and Bullet Motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-10-CA-6801, in which Ramchandra Jaiswal sustained injuries. According to the FIR, the petitioner's Tractor bearing Registration No. CG-10-D-8162 was neither involved in the accident nor

¶26

¶27

seized in connection with the said offence. However, despite not being involved in the crime, the petitioner's tractor has been kept parked in the premises of Police Station Kota. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that although the tractor continues to be registered in the name of Sanjeey Madliyar, the petitioner had purchased the same pursuant to an agreement dated 24-112025, under which the sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 3,00,000/-. Out of the agreed amount, the petitioner paid Rs. 1,00,000/- at the time of the agreement and a further sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, leaving a balance of Rs. 50,000/- payable. The petitioner also made representations to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, seeking release of the vehicle, but no action was taken. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application before the learned JMFC, Kota, seeking interim custody of the tractor on Supurdnama, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 03-06-2026. It further argued that the impugned order has been passed without proper appreciation of facts and material available on record and case diary of P.S. Kota. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking release of Tractor bearing Registration No. CG-10-D-8162, contending that its continued detention is wholly unjustified.

¶28

Learned counsel for the State submits that as per the impugned order dated 03-06-2026 no seizure of Tractor bearing registration No.CG-10-D-8162 has been made in the case. Therefore, no question arises for grant of the said tractor in supurdnama and the

¶29

¶30

application of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District Bilaspur.

¶31

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

¶32

Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 03-06-2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota. As per the FIR, tractor bearing registration no. CG-10-D-8265 is said to be involved in the accident and therefore, the claim of the petitioner for interim custody/supurdnama of tractor bearing Registration No. CG-10-D-8162 in connection with Crime No. 32/2026 is not sustainable. In the absence of any seizure, the question of releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama does not arise. Further, the petitioner himself states that the said tractor has been registered in the name of one Mr. Sanjeey Madliyar and yet it has not been registered in the name of the present petitioner. The learned trial Court has rightly rejected the petitioner's application, and no ground is made out for interference in the same. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed .

¶33

Sd/Sd/-

¶34

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶35

Aadil

Jugendra Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jugendra Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeevan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Ramkunwar Vs Rajsoni Alias Photo Soni

Pradeep Singhaniya Vs Red Carpet Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

Pardeshi Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahabali Choudhary Vs Premsagar

M.S. Painkra Vs State of Chhattisgarh