Disposed¶22

Arun Kumar Yadav v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC16 Oct 2025CRLREV/766/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha HC criminal revision disposed: interim custody/release of seized vehicle under Section 503 BNSS; JMFC Barbil rejection owing to pending confiscation (MMDR Act, 1957 context); direction modelled on Jagdish Chandra Barik (CRLREV No.140 of 2025) and Tafzil Sarwar ((2015) 02 OHC CK 0060); CMC No.167 of 2025 restored to file; disposal of custody application within two weeks; petitioner Arun Kumar Yadav v. State of Odisha; Judge R.K. Pattanaik; order dated 16.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition disposed of with direction to restore CMC No.167 of 2025 to file and dispose of the petitioner's Section 503 BNSS interim-custody application in accordance with law, preferably within two weeks; urgent certified copy to be issued as per rules. ¶22

Arun Kumar Yadav Vs State of Odisha — Mining and Natural Resources | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's application under Section 503 of BNSS for release and interim custody of the seized vehicle, refused on the ground that confiscation was pending before the concerned authority, should be reconsidered by the learned Court below. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

Having regard to the Court order in Jagdish Chandra Barik and taking cognizance of the decision in Tafzil Sarwar, the Court held that a similar direction was necessary for reconsideration of the petitioner's application under Section 503 of BNSS for interim custody of the seized vehicle, and accordingly so ordered.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The proceeding in CMC No.167 of 2025, restored to file, shall be disposed of dealing with the petitioner's application under Section 503 of BNSS as per and in accordance with law and in the light of the directions issued herein, at the earliest preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (CRLREV No.766 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, R.K. Pattanaik, J., order dt. 16.10.2025): The petitioner's application under Section 503 of BNSS for release and interim custody of his seized TATA SIGNA 4018 SBS IV (18 Wheelers) Box Trailer (Regn. No. CC-13AD-8366) was rejected by the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil by order dated 11.09.2025 in CMC No.167 of 2025, confiscation being pending before the concerned authority (vehicle alleged to attract MMDR Act, 1957 confiscation). Having regard to Jagdish Chandra Barik Vrs. State of Odisha (CRLREV No.140 of 2025, dt. 26.06.2025) and taking cognizance of Tafzil Sarwar Vrs. The Dy. Director, Mines Joda Circle ((2015) 02 OHC CK 0060), the Court held that a similar direction was necessary for reconsideration of the custody application, disposed of the revision, restored CMC No.167 of 2025 to file, and directed that the Section 503 BNSS application be dealt with in accordance with law at the earliest, preferably within two weeks.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.766 of 2025

¶3

Arun Kumar Yadav

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. A.R. Panda, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

…. Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

16.10.2025

Order No.

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

¶16

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 11^th September, 2025 passed in CMC No.167 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 i.e. TATA SIGNA 4018 SBS IV (18 Wheelers) Box Trailer bearing Registration No. CC-13AD-8366 move by him has been rejected.

¶17

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

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid. It is further directed that the proceeding in CMC No.167 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.

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 16-Oct-2025 17:08:04

¶26

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶27

Kabita

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Arun Kumar Yadav v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Yadav 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

Jayaram Nayak Vs State Election Commission, Bbsr

Latangini Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Gouribala Das Vs Ramachandra Das

Subash Chandra Bhoi Vs Bipin Bihari Mallick

Rashmi@Rashmi Ranjan Bhol Vs State of Odisha

Shashmita Nayak Vs State of Odisha