3[# HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Sunil‘Kumar Sinha, J. Criminal Revision No. 427 of 2011 Ganga Prasad, S/o Ram Singh, aged about 50‘ years, R/o Village Matiyari, Police Station Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). APPLICANT Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Ku. Jugendri Bai, D/o Ganga / Prasad Sikari, aged about 25 years, R/o Matiyari, P.S. Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). V 2. Raj @ Chhotu, S/o Ganga Prasad Sisodiya (Sikari) aged about 14 years, minor guardian through father Ganga Prasad, R/o Matiyari, P.S. Seepat, Disttr‘vBilaspur (C.G.). 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through— Station House Officer, Seepat, Distt.’ Bilaspur (C.G.). (Criminal Revision u s 397 read with Section 401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 Aggearance: .‘ Ms; Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. RR. Sinha, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER ( 2 .09.'2o11) This revision is directed against the order dated 15.6.2011 passed in Special Case No. 16/2011 by the Special Judge (NDPS) Bilaspur. By the impugned order, an application filed by the applicant for releasing the seized vehicle on Supurdnama has been rej ected. (2) Applicant— Ganga Prasad is the registered owner of TVS XL Super Mopade No. CG 10 H — 1845. The said vehicle was seized in f (1) I 2 Criminal Revision N0. 427 of 2011 . 32 V connection with an offence under Section 20(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act on 29.03.2011. An application was filed before the Special Judge for releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama along with its document but the said application has been rejected on the ground that the = vehicle was being used for transportation of Ganja, therefore, the same cannot be released on Supurdnama being a subject matter of evidence. (3) Ms. Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicant, argued that the vehicle is a machinery and it would not be appropriate to keep it in stationary condition for long period as the same after such period will turn in a junk and rendered to be un-useful for either parw. (4) On the other hand, Mr. RR. Sinha, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the Special Judge. . i (5) The impugned order appears to be misconceived. The Special Judge ought to have considered that the property (vehicle) is a m3 machinery and keeping it for a long timeLidle conditionfat the police station or Nazrat would result to make it a junk and un- useful for either party. If the case of the prosecution is that this particular vehicle was used for committing the alleged offence, looking to the fact that it is a machinery, it would have been released on Supurdnama by imposing certain conditions relating to its nature, appearance and identity etc., so that in case it is \ Q 3 Criminal Revision No. 427 of 2011 required to be used in evidence it may be produced in its original form in which it was existing on the date of seizure. (6) For the foregoing reasons, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.6.2011 passed by the Special Judge, Bilasp%ur is set-aside. It is directed that the impugned vehicle i.e. Mopade No. CG lO/H ~ 1845 seized in connection With above special case, shall be released along with its papers on interim custody of the applicant on the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall execute a Supurdnama of Rs.50,000/- containing that he shall not dispose of the vehicle during the pendency of the trial; he shall not make any change in the original form of the vehicle; and shall produce the vehicle before the concerned authority or the court as and when directed in that behalf. The seized documents relating to the vehicle shall be returned after retaining photocopy‘ of the same. (iii) The applicant shall furnish a solvent surety of Rs.50,000/— to the satisfaction of the concerned Special Court'for due performance of the conditions of Supurdnama executed by the applicant. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ' rahul