Disposed¶25

Sachin Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Nov 2025CRLREV/739/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vehicle seizure release; application under Section 503 BNSS; confiscation proceeding notice service not examined by SDJM Balliguda; non-compliance with earlier direction in CRLREV No.301 of 2025; interim release and custody of vehicle Regn. No.OD-03-S-8630 to owner-petitioner subject to suitable conditions and to confiscation proceeding outcome; impugned order dated 25.07.2025 in M.C. No.40 of 2025 arising out of 2(a)CC Case No.09 of 2025; relied on Ratnakar Behera (MANU/OR/0251/2020), Sunderbhai Ambala Desai ((2003) 24 OCR 444), Ashish Ranjan Mohanty ((2019) 1 OLR 275); revision disposed.

What did the court decide?

Interim release and custody of the vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-03-S-8630 granted in favour of the petitioner, subject to suitable conditions and subject to the decision in the confiscation proceeding, if pending and not yet disposed.

Sachin Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order declining release of the seized vehicle solely on account of pendency of the confiscation proceeding complied with the directions issued by this Court in CRLREV No.301 of 2025, and whether it was liable to be interfered with. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

On a reading of the impugned order (Annexure-6), the Court found nowhere any compliance with the directions issued in CRLREV No.301 of 2025; the sole premise for non-release was pendency of the confiscation proceeding.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The learned court below did not examine whether any notice of the confiscation proceeding was ever served, as on the date the petitioner's application under Section 503 BNSS was received.

¶24

Key takeaways

The learned court below could not have declined to exercise jurisdiction, since at the time the application was filed there was no satisfaction arrived at that the confiscation proceeding had already been initiated by then.ratio¶24
The vehicle in question should be released in favour of the petitioner (its owner); interim release and custody of the vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-03-S-8630 was directed in favour of the petitioner, subject to suitable conditions imposed.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (R.K. Pattanaik, J.), order dated 12.11.2025 in CRLREV No.739 of 2025 (Sachin Sahu Vrs. State of Odisha): revision against the order dated 25th July, 2025 of the learned SDJM, Balliguda in M.C. No.40 of 2025 arising out of 2(a)CC Case No.09 of 2025, whereby release of the petitioner's seized vehicle was refused solely on account of pendency of a confiscation proceeding. The Court found no compliance with its earlier direction in CRLREV No.301 of 2025 (order dated 25th June, 2025, Annexure-5) to consider release afresh, and held that the learned court below did not examine whether any notice of the confiscation proceeding had been served when the petitioner's application under Section 503 BNSS was received; absent satisfaction that the confiscation proceeding had been initiated by then, the court below could not have declined to exercise jurisdiction. Considering Ratnakar Behera Vrs. State of Odisha (MANU/OR/0251/2020), Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vrs. State of Gujarat ((2003) 24 OCR 444) and Ashish Ranjan Mohanty Vrs. State of Odisha and others ((2019) 1 OLR 275), the Court directed interim release and custody of the vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-03-S-8630 in favour of the petitioner-owner, subject to suitable conditions and subject to the decision in the confiscation proceeding, if pending and not disposed; the revision was disposed with this direction.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.739 of 2025

¶3

Sachin Sahu

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. A. K. Biswal, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

…. Opposite Party

¶9

Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC

¶10

CORAM: MR. JUSTICER.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order No.

12.11.2025

1. Heard Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.

¶15

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 25^th July, 2025 passed in connection with M.C. No.40 of 2025 by the learned SDJM, Balliguda arising out of 2(a)CC Case No.09 of 2025.

¶16

This Court by order dated 25^th June, 2025 in CRLREV No.301 of 2025, a copy of which is at Annexure-5, had directed the learned court below to consider release of the seizure vehicle afresh in the light of the directions issued therein.

¶17

Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on the date of the application under Section 503 BNSS, the petitioner had not received any such notice in the confiscation proceeding, however, the same has not been duly examined by the learned court below in compliance of the Court’s order i.e. Annexure-5, hence, therefore, the same is

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

liable to be interfered with and set aside followed by consequential directions issued.

¶20

Recorded the submission of Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State, who justifies the impugned order i.e. Annexure-6 with the submission that the learned court below did not err or commit any serious illegality having not allowed release of the seizure vehicle in view of the pendency of the confiscation proceeding in respect thereof.

¶21

The Court on a reading of the impugned order at Annexure-6 does not find anywhere the compliance of the directions issued in CRLREV No.301 of 2025. The premise on which, the vehicle has not been released by the learned court below is merely on account of pendency of the confiscation proceeding. It is the claim of the petitioner that no such proceeding was within the knowledge of the petitioner as he had not received any such notice in that regard and hence, the learned court below was possessed of the jurisdiction to deal with the application under Section 503 BNSS but it has resulted in the passing of the impugned order at Annexure-6.

¶22

Considering the facts pleaded on record and submissions as above and in view of the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court Ratnakar Behera Vrs. State of Odisha MANU/OR/0251/2020 and of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vrs. State of Gujarat (2003) 24 OCR 444 and Ashish Ranjan Mohanty Vrs. State of Odisha and others ( 2019) 1 OLR 275, the Court is of the

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

view that the vehicle in question should be directed to be released in favour of the petitioner. The Court is also of the view that the learned court below did not examine whether any such notice was ever served with the confiscation proceeding initiated, as on the date, when the application under Section 503 BNSS was received from the petitioner. In such view of the matter, considering the plea of the petitioner, who happens to the owner of the alleged vehicle and the decision in Ratnakar Behera (supra), this Court, with the conclusion that the learned court below could not have declined to exercise the jurisdiction as by the time when the application was filed, in absence of a satisfaction arrived at that the confiscation proceeding had already been initiated by then, is in favour of directing interim release and custody of the vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-03-S-8630 in favour of the petitioner subject to suitable conditions imposed. It is also inclined to direct that any such release and interim custody of the vehicle in question received by the petitioner shall be subject to the decision in the confiscation proceeding, if the same is stated to be pending and not yet disposed and accordingly, it is ordered.

¶25

In the result, the revision is disposed with the direction as aforesaid.

¶26

Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 13-Nov-2025 19:15:16 Rojina

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Sachin Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Sahu v. State of Odisha

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

Amitav Panda Vs Jashabidya Dash

Trinath Vihar Resident Welfare Association, Cuttack Vs State of Odisha

Abhi Behera Vs State of Odisha

Sunder Mahanto Vs State

Hemnata@Nabin Meher Vs State of Odisha

Rama Chandra Parida Vs State of Odisha