Allowed

Kailash Kumar v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Sept 2026CRLREV/596/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa allowed the revision against an order rejecting the petitioner's application for interim custody of a seized vehicle. The court held that since investigation was over, the vehicle, belonging to the petitioner, should be released.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; direction to release seized vehicle BR-01-DZ-2011 in favor of petitioner upon verification of documents.

Kailash Kumar Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.596 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010612762026

¶3

Kailash Kumar …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. P.K. Das, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panda, ASC

¶8

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

09.09.2026

Order No.

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

¶14

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order at Annexure-3 passed in connection with M.C. No.02 of 2026 arising out of T.R. No.21 of 2024 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur, whereby, an application under Section 503 BNSS moved by him seeking interim release and custody of seizure vehicle, a HONDA CITY Car bearing Registration No.BR-01-DZ-2011 has been declined and rejected on the grounds stated.

¶15

Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the alleged vehicle and while claiming so, he refers to the copies of the Registration Certificate with an insurance paper at Annexure-2 series. The further submission is that the release of the seizure vehicle has been denied by the learned court below on the ground that the

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

same may be used in future for illegal transportation of Ganja. It is submitted that the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle in question should have been allowed to receive interim custody of the same but it has been denied vide Annexure-3 and at present lying in the premises of the Excise P.S. exposed to severe climatic conditions and hence, likely to be damaged and therefore, it is required to be disposed of at the earliest. Mr. Panda, learned ASC, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is an accused arrested and forwarded to the court and was released on bail and another, who is involved with him is still absconding and in the meantime, the final P.R. is filed and considering the same, the learned court below rejected the application under Section 503 BNSS denying such release of the seizure vehicle in his favour.

¶18

It is not denied by the State that the petitioner is not the owner of the seizure vehicle. In fact, from Annexure-4 series, this Court finds that the petitioner is the rightful claimant of the seized vehicle but is an accused at the same time. The copy of the P.R. (Form No.C-2) is at Annexure-1 and the same is gone through. The reason assigned by the learned court below revealed from Annexure-3 is that the alleged vehicle may be further involved in such illicit transportation of contraband Ganja. But in the considered view of the Court, when the investigation is over, the learned court below could not have denied release of the seized vehicle in favour of the rightful claimant on any such ground. It is not to be presumed that the vehicle sought to be released in interim custody may

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

again be involved in such mischief. Since the investigation is concluded, there is no need for any detention of the vehicle as according to the Court. Law is well settled that a seizure vehicle is not to be unnecessarily detained without any purpose. Any such detention is certainly to damage the alleged vehicle and may even diminish its value in the market and therefore, it was not right and justified on the part of the learned court below to deny interim custody of the same in favour of the petitioner, who is prima facie found to be the owner, considering Annexure-2 series and therefore, the impugned order dated 15^th May, 2026 at Annexure-3 is liable to be interfered with.

¶21

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶22

In the result, the revision stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order at Annexure-3 in M.C. No.02 of 2026 arising out of T.R. No.21 of 2024 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur is hereby set aside with a direction to forthwith release the seizure vehicle bearing Registration No.BR-01-DZ-2011 in favour of the petitioner upon verification of the original documents, such as, the Registration Certificate and insurance papers upon its production soon after receiving a copy of this order.

¶23

Issue urgent copy of this order as per rules.

¶24

(R.K. Pattanaik)

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Balaram Judge

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 11-Sep-2026 11:26:29

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Kailash Kumar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Kumar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases