SHOBHIT JAJODIA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1 / 14

CGHC010405122026 2026:CGHC:46110
NAFR
PAWAN
KUMAR
JHA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed by
PAWAN
KUMAR JHA
CRMP No. 2683 of 2026
Shobhit Jajodia S/o Awadh Jajodia Aged About 30 Years R/o Near
•
Sumangal Apartment, Link Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
•
Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Dubey, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Shubham Tripathi, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate
SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
30.10.2026
1. Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS')
assailing the order dated 05.10.2026 passed in Criminal Revision
th
No. 188/2026 by which learned 9 Additional Sessions Judge,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) dismissed the revision preferred by
applicant while affirming the order dated 18.08.2026 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur,
whereby application filed by applicant under Section 503 of BNSS

2 / 14
for custody of the seized vehicle car Kia Seltos bearing registration
No. CG10-AS-3131 and one Apple iPhone 16 (hereinafter referred to
as “seized articles”) has been rejected.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 10.08.2026, an F.I.R. bearing
Crime No. 570/2026 was registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District
Bilaspur, against the petitioner for the alleged commission of an
offence under Section 20(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act'). According to the
prosecution, on the basis of a secret information, police intercepted
a Kia Seltos car bearing registration No. CG10-AS-3131 near Naya
Bus Stand, Tifra, and allegedly recovered 5.32 grams of Marijuana/
cannabis from a transparent zipper polythene kept inside a
cardboard box in the front dashboard of the vehicle. Police seized
the aforesaid vehicle and an Apple iPhone 16 Pro 256 GB belonging
to the petitioner and arrested him. Subsequently, petitioner was
released on bail. After completion of investigation, a final report
bearing No. 450/2026 dated 15.09.2026 was filed before the
competent Court.
3. Petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 503 of the
BNSS before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur,
seeking interim custody of the seized vehicle and mobile phone,
contending that he is the registered owner of the seized articles and
their continued retention would cause unnecessary financial loss
and deterioration. However, learned Judicial Magistrate, vide order

3 / 14
dated 18.08.2026, rejected the application observing that the seized
articles were allegedly used in the commission of the offence and
their release might affect the investigation and the proceedings.
4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 188/2026 before the
learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. The revisional
Court dismissed the revision vide order dated 05.10.2026, mainly
observing that the petitioner himself is an accused in the case and
the contraband was recovered from his vehicle. Hence, this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the
registered owner of the seized vehicle and the owner of the mobile
phone, which is evident from the documents produced before the
Courts below. He submits that the alleged recovery is only 5.32
grams of Ganja, which is far below the prescribed small quantity of 1
kilogram. It is further submitted that the investigation has already
been completed and the final report has been filed. Therefore,
continuous retention of the seized articles will serve no useful
purpose. The vehicle is lying in the premises of the police station
under open sky and is likely to deteriorate. He further submits that
the identity and evidentiary value of the seized articles can be
preserved by preparing a proper panchnama, photographs and
recording their identifying particulars before release. In support of his
contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme
Court in M/s ABC Express vs. State of Gujarat passed in Criminal

4 / 14
Appeal No. 4172 of 2026 dated 02.09.2026 and the order passed by
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Madhudas vs. State of
Chhattisgarh passed in CRMP No. 809 of 2026.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submission of
learned counsel for petitioner and submits that the contraband
(Ganja) was recovered from the vehicle belonging to the petitioner
himself and, therefore, the vehicle and mobile phone are liable to be
retained in connection with the proceedings under the NDPS Act. It
is further submitted that the petitioner himself is an accused and the
vehicle is liable to confiscation under Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders
impugned and the documents available on record.
8. The question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether
interim custody of the vehicle and mobile phone can be granted to
the petitioner during pendency of the proceedings under the NDPS
Act, particularly when he himself is an accused in the case.
9. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to consider the
relevant statutory provisions governing the custody of seized
property.
10. Section 503 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 457 of the
CrPC) empowers the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders regarding
delivery of seized property to the person entitled to its possession,

5 / 14
subject to such conditions as may be considered appropriate, which
reads thus:
“503. Procedure by police upon seizure of
property. (1)Whenever the seizure of property by
any police officer is reported to a Magistrate
under the provisions of this Sanhita, and such
property is not produced before a Criminal Court
during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may
make such order as he thinks fit respecting the
disposal of such property or the delivery of such
property to the person entitled to the possession
thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained,
respecting the custody and production of such
property.
(2) If the person so entitled is known, the
Magistrate may order the property to be delivered
to him on such conditions (if any) as the
Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is
unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall,
in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the
articles of which such property consists, and
requiring any person who may have a claim
thereto, to appear before him and establish his
claim within six months from the date of such
proclamation.”
11. Further, Sections 36-C and 51 of the NDPS Act make the provisions
of the BNSS applicable to proceedings before the Special Court,
insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the NDPS
Act.
12. At this stage, it would also be appropriate to refer to Section 60(3)
and Section 63 of the NDPS Act, which read as under:

6 / 14
“60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants,
articles and conveyances to confiscation.—
(3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying
any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or
any article liable to confiscation under sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to
confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or
conveyance proves that it was so used without
the knowledge or connivance of the owner
himself, his agent, if any, and the person in
charge of the animal or conveyance and that each
of them had taken all reasonable precautions
against such use.
63. Procedure in making confiscations.—(1) In
the trial of offences under this Act, whether the
accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged,
the court shall decide whether any article or
thing seized under this Act is liable to
confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or
section 62 and, if it decides that the article is so
liable, it may order confiscation accordingly.
(2)Where any article or thing seized under this
Act appears to be liable to confiscation under
section 60 or section 61 or section 62, but the
person who committed the offence in connection
therewith is not known or cannot be found, the
court may inquire into and decide such liability,
and may order confiscation accordingly:
Provided that no order of confiscation of an
article or thing shall be made until the expiry of
one month from the date of seizure, or without
hearing any person who may claim any right
thereto and the evidence, if any, which he
produces in respect of his claim:
Provided further that if any such article or
thing, other than a narcotic drug, psychotropic
substance, controlled substance, the opium
poppy, coca plant or cannabis plant is liable to
speedy and natural decay, or if the court is of

7 / 14
opinion that its sale would be for the benefit of
its owner, it may at any time direct it to be sold;
and the provisions of this sub-section shall, as
nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net
proceeds of the sale.”
13. From the above-extracted provision, it is clear that Section 60(3) of
the NDPS Act provides for liability of a conveyance to confiscation,
subject to the defence available to its owner. The procedure for
determining such liability is prescribed under Section 63(1), which
requires the trial Court to decide the question of confiscation in the
trial, irrespective of whether the accused is convicted, acquitted or
discharged. Therefore, the question of confiscation of the seized
vehicle is to be determined by the trial Court upon conclusion of the
trial, after affording the concerned claimant an opportunity of hearing.
So far as interim release is concerned, mere allegation that
marijuana/ cannabis was recovered from the petitioner's vehicle does
not, by itself, require the vehicle to remain in police custody
throughout the trial. Its interim custody can be entrusted to the
petitioner on appropriate conditions, without prejudice to the trial
Court's power to decide the question of confiscation independently
and in accordance with law.
14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam ,
reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241 has held as under:
“ 25. Upon a reading of the NDPS Act, this Court is of
the view that the seized vehicles can be confiscated by
the trial court only on conclusion of the trial when the

8 / 14
accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged.
Further, even where the court is of the view that the
vehicle is liable for confiscation, it must give an
opportunity of hearing to the person who may claim
any right to the seized vehicle before passing an order
of confiscation. However, the seized vehicle is not
liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle
can prove that the vehicle was used by the accused
person without the owner's knowledge or connivance
and that he had taken all reasonable precautions
against such use of the seized vehicle by the accused
person.
26. This Court is further of the opinion that there is no
specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the
NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for
transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in
the interim pending disposal of the criminal case.
27. In the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS
Act and in view of Section 51 of the NDPS Act, the
Court can invoke the general power under Sections
451 and 457CrPC for return of the seized vehicle
pending final decision of the criminal case.
Consequently, the trial court has the discretion to
release the vehicle in the interim. However, this power
would have to be exercised in accordance with law in
the facts and circumstances of each case.”
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai
v. State of Gujarat , reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 while dealing
with question of proper custody of the seized articles has emphasised
that the powers relating to the custody and disposal of seized
property should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. The Court
observed that keeping seized vehicles at police stations for long
periods serves no useful purpose and that appropriate orders may be
passed by taking bonds, guarantees and security to ensure that the

9 / 14
property remains available for production whenever required and
observed thus:-
" 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 the proper panchnama before handing over
possession of the article is prepared, 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 the
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.”
x x x x x
17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no
use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations
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."
16. In Bishwajit Dey (supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the
circumstances in which interim custody of a vehicle seized under the
NDPS Act may be considered and has emphasised that each case
has to be examined on its own facts and circumstances. The Court
has also clarified that the principles laid down therein are not to be
applied as a rigid formula and further observed thus:-

10 / 14
“33. Though seizure of drugs/substances from
conveyances can take place in a number of
situations, yet broadly speaking there are four
scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized
from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the
vehicle is the person from whom the possession of
contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly,
where the contraband is recovered from the
possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver
or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the
vehicle has been stolen by the accused and
contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle.
Fourthly, where the contraband is seized/recovered
from a third-party occupant (with or without
consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation
by the police that the contraband was stored and
transported in the vehicle with the owner's
knowledge and connivance. In the first two
scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent
would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the
third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle
and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused.
34. This Court is of the view that criminal law has
not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each
case. Consequently, it is only in the first two
scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on
superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged
by the accused-owner. However, in the third and
fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made
in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his
agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the
interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing
a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and
when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the
value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on
the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the
opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated.”
17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in above referred case has issued the word
‘may’ and not ‘shall’ in particular circumstances as instance. In view

11 / 14
of above, in the facts where the owner tavelling in vehicle, on
inspection found with contraband kept in vehicle will only not
sufficient not to consider other aspect and factors of the case. In the
case at hand, the quantity is only 5.32 grams, found kept in small
zipper polythene pouch.
18. Therefore, in the facts of present case, while the fact that the
petitioner himself is an accused and the alleged contraband was
recovered from his vehicle is certainly a relevant circumstance. The
prayer for interim custody requires consideration of all other relevant
circumstances as well like conscious possession in facts of the cse
still is a fact required to be proved.
19. On applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,
the following circumstances emerge from the material available on
record:
(i) Firstly , the petitioner has produced the registration certificate of
the seized Kia Seltos car bearing registration No. CG10-AS-3131,
which establishes his ownership. The ownership of the seized Apple
iPhone 16 Pro is also supported by the purchase bill produced
before the Courts below.
(ii) Secondly , the alleged contraband recovered from the vehicle is
only 5.32 grams of Ganja, which is substantially below the
prescribed small quantity of 1 kilogram.
(iii) Thirdly , although the petitioner himself is an accused,
investigation has already been completed and the final report has
been filed. Thus, the apprehension regarding interference with the
investigation, which weighed with the learned Magistrate, no longer
survives.

12 / 14
(iv) Fourthly , the seized vehicle is a valuable property and its
continued retention in the open premises of the police station is
likely to cause deterioration and unnecessary financial loss to the
petitioner.
(v) Lastly , the identity and evidentiary value of the seized articles
can be sufficiently preserved by preparing a detailed panchnama ,
taking photographs and recording their identifying particulars before
handing over their interim custody. In respect of the mobile phone,
its relevant data, if required for the prosecution, can first be secured
by the investigating agency in accordance with law.
20. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances, particularly
the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered, ownership
documents produced by the petitioner, completion of investigation
and the possibility of preserving the evidentiary value of the seized
articles through appropriate safeguards, this Court is of the
considered opinion that their continued retention in police custody is
not warranted. The fact that the petitioner himself is an accused
cannot, by itself, be treated as an absolute ground to deny interim
custody. The question of his culpability and the ultimate liability of
the vehicle to confiscation are matters to be decided during the
proceedings in accordance with law. The interests of the prosecution
can adequately be protected by imposing appropriate conditions
upon the petitioner.
21. For the foregoing discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court
learned Courts below have not properly appreciated the scope of
Section 503 of the BNSS read with the relevant provisions of the

13 / 14
NDPS Act and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and Bishwajit Dey (supra) .
Therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to
be set aside.
22. Accordingly, the petition is allowed . The order dated 05.10.2026
passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur,
District Bilaspur, in Criminal Revision No. 188/2026 and the order
dated 18.08.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Bilaspur, in the application filed under Section 503 of the
BNSS are hereby set aside.
23. The application filed by the petitioner seeking interim custody of the
seized articles is allowed. The seized Kia Seltos car bearing
registration No. CG10-AS-3131 and Apple iPhone 16 Pro 256 GB
bearing IMEI No. 356656206281437 shall be released in favour of
the petitioner on interim custody, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond of 7,50,000/- with one ₹
surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court,
undertaking to produce the seized articles whenever directed by the
competent Court.
(ii) Before release of the vehicle, its ownership documents, registration
particulars, engine number and chassis number shall be duly verified and
recorded. A detailed panchnama along with photographs of the vehicle
shall be prepared and placed on record.
(iii) Before release of the mobile phone, its IMEI number and other
identifying particulars shall be recorded. The investigating agency shall
ensure that any necessary forensic examination and preservation of

14 / 14
relevant data is completed in accordance with law before its release. A
panchnama and photographs shall also be prepared.
(iv) The petitioner shall not sell, transfer or create any third-party interest
in the vehicle without prior permission of the competent Court during
pendency of the proceedings.
(v) The petitioner shall not destroy, tamper with or materially alter the
identity or condition of the seized articles and shall produce them before
the competent Court whenever directed.
(vi) The petitioner shall not use or permit the use of the vehicle for
commission of any offence.
(vii) The release of the seized articles shall not affect the jurisdiction of the
competent Court to proceed in accordance with law regarding the alleged
offence or their ultimate confiscation under the NDPS Act
(viii) The release of the seized articles shall not be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the criminal case or the question of
their ultimate liability to confiscation.
24. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 570/2026.
The observations made herein are confined only to the question of
interim custody of the seized articles.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
( Parth Prateem Sahu )
Judge
pwn