Disposed

Md.Wahab Khan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Oct 2025CRLREV/755/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of his Section 503 BNSS application for interim custody of his seized vehicle while confiscation proceedings were pending. Relying on Jagdish Chandra Barik and Tafzil Sarwar, the High Court directed reconsideration of the application in accordance with law within two weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

Md.Wahab Khan Vs State of Odisha — Mining and Natural Resources | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.755 of 2025

¶3

Md. Wahab Khan …. Petitioner Mr. A.R. Panda, Advocate

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

State of Odisha

¶6

…. Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

15.10.2025

Order No.

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

¶14

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 18^th August, 2025 passed in CMC No.127 of 2025 by the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil, whereby, an application under Section 503 of BNSS seeking release and interim custody of the seizure vehicle bearing Registration No.HR-38Z-4859 move by him has been rejected.

¶15

In course of hearing, Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a similar case, this Court in Jagdish Chandra Barik Vrs. State of Odisha (CRLREV No.140 of 2025 dated 26^th June, 2025) remanded the matter back taking judicial notice of a decision in Tafzil Sarwar Vrs. The Dy. Director, Mines Joda Circle (2015) 02 OHC CK 0060 and hence, a similar direction may perhaps be issued in the case at hand. The further submission is that the concerned authority does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the confiscation visà-vis the vehicle under the MMDR Act, 1957 but on such

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

premise, the learned Court below rejected the application under Section 503 of BNSS. It is submitted that the learned Court below is, rather, having the power to deal with release of the seizure vehicle.

¶18

Recorded the submission of Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State, according to whom, the record reveals that the petitioner is inclined to compound the offence alleged.

¶19

Having regard to the Court order in Jagdish Chandra Barik (supra) and since the petitioner being the owner of the alleged vehicle approached the learned Court below seeking its interim custody in terms of Section 503 of BNSS and has been refused on the ground that the confiscation is pending before the concerned authority, taking cognizance of the decision in Tafzil Sarwar (supra), the Court is of the view that similar direction is necessary for reconsideration of such application and accordingly, it is ordered.

¶20

In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid. It is further directed that the proceeding in CMC No.127 of 2025 restored to file shall be disposed of dealing with the application under Section 503 of BNSS filed by the petitioner as per and in accordance with law and in the light of the directions issued herein above followed by an order at the earliest preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 16-Oct-2025 12:24:04

¶23