Order : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Session Case no. 269/2024 concerned in Crime No. 386/2024 registered at Police Station Mana Camp, District Raipur, for the offence punishable under Sections 64,, 351(2) of the BNS, wherein the petitioner’s application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 497 of the BNSS for release of her seized vehicle, Honda City Car bearing registration no. CG 04 NC 1947 was rejected by the learned sessions court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.09.2024 the vehicle Honda City car bearing registration no. CG 04 NC 1947 was seized by the Police of Police Station Mana Camp in connection with crime no. 386 of 2024 which was registered under section 64 and 351(2) of the BNS against the petitioner’s son. The car was seized on a complaint lodged by the victim, who had alleged that she was forcibly taken in the said car and the car was being driven by the son of the petitioner on that day i.e. on 04.09.2024. She further alleged that the petitioner’s son drove the car for a prolonged period without her consent and thereby attempted to make physical relation with her and eventually committed an act of sexual assault inside the same car. She even alleged that the doors of the said car were locked by the petitioner’s son and she was restrained against her will. 3. Based upon the aforementioned allegations police initiated the investigation and seized the said vehicle on 06.09.2024 claiming it to be the instrument used in the commission of the alleged offense. The petitioner’s son was arrested on 07.09.2024 and has remained in judicial custody since then, after the conclusion of the investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet before the trial court, and the trial proceedings have commenced. The petitioner, being the registered owner of the vehicle and having no involvement in the case, had filed an application before the Learned District and Sessions judge, Raipur, for the release of the said vehicle on Supurdnama which was rejected on 25.01.2025. Hence this petition. 4. The petitioner, being the registered owner of the vehicle and having no involvement in the case, had filed an application before the Learned District and Sessions judge, Raipur, for the release of the said vehicle on Supurdnama which was rejected on 25.01.2025. Hence this petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and his name has been endorsed in the RTO documents. Documents of the concerned vehicle as well as the copy of the registration certificate has been place on record as Annexure P/2. He submits that the vehicle is standing in an open area and there is a probability the car would get damaged and its value would be deteriorated. Hence to substantiate his fact he relied upont he judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat(2002) where it is categorically held that seized vehicles should not be allowed to remain in police custody for long periods as they suffer depreciation and unnecessary damage. Hence he prays to allow the instant petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 25.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No. 269 of 2024 and release the seized vehicle in favor of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the State did not opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and states that there is nowhere the name of the present petitioner in the alleged crime. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs.State of Gujarat , reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, in para 7 and 17 has laid down guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by police. For ready reference, the relevant portion is reproduced below:- “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. 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; 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.” 8. Similar stand has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in 2013 (3) SCC 240 , wherein the Supreme Court has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the Police Station in open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of weather conditions for a long period. 9. In the instant case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no useful purpose would be served if the vehicle is allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the vehicle can be released to the petitioner, who is claiming himself to be the owner of the vehicle. On perusal of the records it transpires that the petitioner has filed a copy of vehicle registration certificate and the petitioner is not an accused in this criminal case. There is no other compelling reason warranting rejection of application for release of the seized vehicle under interim custody of the Petitioner. On perusal of the records it transpires that the petitioner has filed a copy of vehicle registration certificate and the petitioner is not an accused in this criminal case. There is no other compelling reason warranting rejection of application for release of the seized vehicle under interim custody of the Petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention here that in many cases, it is found that vehicles are standing for long period even after confiscation order has been passed and despite 2-3 years, no substantive action has been taken and the vehicle is still standing in stationed condition. 10.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai (supra) and also considering the facts of the case, submissions made by counsel for parties, the fact that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served to keep the seized vehicle in the police custody and it would be appropriate to release the seized vehicle Honda City Car bearing Registration No. CG 04 NC 1947 on Supurdnama in favour of the petitioner. 11.Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 25.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No. 269 of 2024 is hereby set aside. The seized vehicle is directed to be released on Supurdnama in favour of the petitioner on the following conditions:- (i) Before release of the vehicle, the documents pertaining to ownership of the said vehicle be verified and proper Panchnama of the vehicle be made. (ii) Photographs of the vehicle should be taken and bond should also be produced that the vehicle would be produced as and when required. (iii) Proper security i.e. personal bond of Rs. 20,00,000/- (twenty lakhs) and equivalent surety be obtained before release of vehicle.