High Court directs interim release of seized motorcycle subject to bond and security pending confiscation proceedings

A Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge heard a writ petition challenging the Collector-cum-District Magistrate's order dated 10.01.2024 rejecting an application for supurdnama (interim custody) of a motorcycle seized in connection with alleged excise offences.

The Court allowed the petition and directed interim release of the seized vehicle to the petitioner subject to conditions. The Bench held that the Collector had not assigned reasons for rejecting the supurdnama application and applied settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court that it was "of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police station for a long period." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: 1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; 2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. if proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepare, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of property in detail; and 4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. ... 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police station for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles." The Bench noted that "no reasons have been assigned for rejection of application for supurdnama, except that matter is pending" and therefore the impugned order could not be sustained.

Background The petitioner, owner of a Honda SP Shine bearing registration No. CG-04-NN-8694, sought interim custody after the vehicle was seized by police on 06.09.2023 in connection with Crime No. 674/2023 registered under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 for alleged transportation of 6.300 bulk litres of country-made liquor. The petitioner was arrested, subsequently granted bail, and the investigating officer filed the final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 20.11.2023. On 11.12.2023 the Collector issued a show-cause notice proposing confiscation of the vehicle; the petitioner filed an application under Section 47-A(2) of the Act for supurdnama which the Collector rejected by order dated 10.01.2024.

The High Court examined the statutory framework under Section 47-A(2) and (3) and observed that while the statute provides for confiscation and a right of appeal under Section 47-B only against the final confiscation order, interim orders regarding custody are amenable to judicial review under Articles 226/227. Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) and Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai v. State of Gujarat (2013), the Court emphasised that prolonged custody of vehicles at police stations leads to natural decay and loss of roadworthiness, and that Magistrates or competent authorities should consider handing over seized vehicles on appropriate bonds and securities pending conclusion of proceedings.

Applying those principles, the High Court found that the Collector had not given reasons for rejecting the supurdnama application and that keeping the vehicle in police custody long-term served no useful purpose. The petition was allowed and the Court directed interim release of the vehicle if confiscation proceedings had not been concluded as on the date of production of the order. The Court granted liberty to release the motorcycle subject to specified safeguards and conditions.

Case Details: Case No.: WPCR No. 29 of 2024 Case Title: Dhanesh Kumar Ratre v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Ritika Verma, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer