Seized E-Rickshaw Should Not Deteriorate at Police Station: Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Interim Release to Owner

On 04.11.2025 the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur rejected the applicant's Section 503 BNSS application for supurdnama of her e-rickshaw; she filed a revision under Sections 438 and 442 BNSS (para 1). Police say that on 16.10.2025 two accused were caught carrying 4000 ml of codeine phosphate and triprolidine syrup, a commercial quantity, in the e-rickshaw; an FIR under Sections 21(b) and 29 NDPS Act followed; a charge-sheet against four accused is pending (para 2). She said she was the registered owner, her brother, an accused, had rented it, she knew nothing of the crime and was not prosecuted, and it lay in the open at the police station (para 3). The State cited the pending trial (para 4).

Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi J. relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, that vehicles seized during investigation should not be allowed to deteriorate by being kept unused and unattended in police station premises (para 6). He noted that coordinate Benches of the High Court, including in Arvind Kumar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh (Cr.M.P. No. 956/2014, order of 18.11.2014), had ordered that supurdnama of a vehicle can be given during trial (para 6). The applicant claimed to own the vehicle and had filed its registration certificate and insurance policy, which substantiated that claim; the vehicle was not being used by the owner at the relevant time (para 6). The Court added that a confiscation proceeding can be initiated only after the trial is complete (para 6). Looking to those circumstances and the applicant's entitlement, and following the Supreme Court and its own earlier orders, it held that interim custody could be given to her on appropriate directions and conditions (para 6). The release was ordered as an interim measure lasting until the trial, or any confiscation proceeding drawn against the vehicle, is complete (para 7).