Phoolchand Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:45176
1 MCRC-8604-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
rd
ON THE 23 OF JUNE, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8604 of 2026
PHOOLCHAND YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Pramod Kumar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Priyanka Mishra - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order
dated 17.01.2026 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge,
Seoni in Criminal Revision No.22/2025 (Phulchand Yadav Vs. State of
M.P.) whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the
order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned Court below rejecting the
application for interim custody/release of vehicle on Supurdnama was
affirmed.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner claims to be the registered
owner of Pickup Vehicle bearing Registration No. M.P.20 ZN 6172. The
documents related to vehicle has been filed as Annexure P/1. Crime
No.172/2025 came to be registered at Police Station Bandol/Barkheda,
District Seoni for offences punishable under Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 30-06-2026
13:11:39

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:45176
2 MCRC-8604-2026
Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, Sections 6(g), 7, 10

and 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Krishak Parikshan Adhiniyam and Section
11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. During the course of
investigation, the aforesaid vehicle was seized by the police.
3. The petitioner thereafter moved an application before the competent
Court seeking release of the seized vehicle on Supurdnama. The said
application was rejected by order dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure P/2),
principally on the ground that confiscation proceedings concerning the
vehicle were pending before the Collector, Seoni. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.22/2025 before the Court of Third
Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni. The revisional Court, vide order dated
17.01.2026 (Annexure P/3), dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the
order of rejection. Hence, the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the
registered owner of the vehicle and has not committed any offence. It is
argued that the vehicle was not being used for any illegal activity and were
being transported pursuant to a bona fide transaction. It is further contended
that the vehicle is the sole source of livelihood of the petitioner. Learned
counsel submits that the vehicle was purchased through finance from
Finance Company and, due to its continued seizure, the petitioner has
defaulted in payment of installments. Notices and arbitration proceedings
initiated by the finance company have been filed as Annexure P/5. It is
argued that continued retention of the vehicle is causing severe financial
hardship to the petitioner and his family.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 30-06-2026
13:11:39

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:45176
3 MCRC-8604-2026
5. Learned counsel contends that if the vehicle remains parked in the police

station premises for an indefinite period, it would deteriorate due to exposure
to weather conditions, resulting in irreparable loss. Reliance has been placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, wherein it was observed that
seized vehicles should not be allowed to remain unattended for long periods
and ordinarily ought to be released on appropriate terms and conditions.It is
also submitted that pendency of confiscation proceedings by itself cannot be
a ground to deny interim custody when ownership of the vehicle is not
disputed.
6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State
opposed the petition and supported the impugned orders. It is submitted that
the vehicle was seized while allegedly being used in transportation of cattle
in violation of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh
Pratishedh Adhiniyam and other enactments. It is argued that confiscation
proceedings have already been initiated before the competent authority and,
therefore, release of the vehicle may adversely affect such proceedings.It is
further submitted that the offences alleged are serious in nature and the
vehicle constitutes material property connected with the commission of the
offence. The learned Government Advocate contends that both the Courts
below have passed reasoned orders and no interference is warranted in
exercise of inherent/supervisory jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record. At the outset, it is to be noted that the issue relating to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 30-06-2026
13:11:39

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:45176
4 MCRC-8604-2026
confiscation of vehicles during pendency of criminal proceedings under the

M.P. Excise Act has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court in
Ramlal Jharia vs. State of M.P. (WP No. 11356/2024). The relevant portion
of the judgment is reproduced herein:

“96. Therefore, the questions referred to us in the matter of
jurisdiction to pass confiscation order during pendency of criminal
proceedings under M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and Cow Progeny Act
are answered in the following manner:
A. Section 47-A of M.P. Excise Act conferring authority on the
Collector to pass order for confiscation is declared ultravires being
disproportionately violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, question of confiscation by the
Collector during pendency of criminal trial no longer survives in
the matter, as order for confiscation can now be passed only by the
Criminal Court trying the offence in terms of sections 46 and 47
thereof. As a necessary consequence thereto, Section 47-D would
become inoperative in all cases where confiscation orders have not
been passed as yet, having rendered superfluous.
B. For cases under Cow Progeny Act, the Collector/District
Magistrate shall be competent to initiate proceedings for
confiscation during pendency of criminal trial, but no confiscation
order can be passed before conclusion of criminal trial and the
Collector/District Magistrate would be empowered to confiscate
the vehicle only if conviction is recorded in criminal trial and
involvement of vehicle and knowledge/connivance of the owner is
proved in the criminal trial.”
8. From the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, it is clear that the
Collector has no jurisdiction to pass an order of confiscation under the
Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam during pendency of
criminal trial. The power of confiscation now vests exclusively with the
criminal court upon conclusion of trial.
9. The ownership of the vehicle bearing Registration No. M.P.20 ZE 6172
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 30-06-2026
13:11:39

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:45176
5 MCRC-8604-2026
is not in dispute. The registration certificate placed on record as Annexure

P/1 prima facie establishes that the petitioner is the registered owner of the
vehicle. The sole reason assigned by the Courts below for declining release
appears to be the pendency of confiscation proceedings before the Collector.
10. The law relating to interim custody of seized vehicles is well settled. In
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court categorically held that valuable vehicles should not be permitted to
remain stationed in police premises for long duration as such retention serves
no useful purpose and often results in deterioration of the property. The
Court emphasized that appropriate orders for release ought to be passed
expeditiously upon imposing suitable safeguards.
11. Having considered the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the
view that the interests of justice would be adequately safeguarded by
releasing the vehicle to the petitioner on stringent conditions. The
apprehension of the prosecution can be addressed by directing the petitioner
not to alienate or alter the vehicle and by requiring adequate security.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.01.2026 passed by the Third
Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Criminal Revision No.22/2025
(Annexure P/3) and the order dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure P/2) are hereby
set aside.
13. Consequently, it is directed that Pickup Vehicle bearing Registration
No. M.P.20 ZN 6172, seized in connection with Crime No.172/2025
registered at Police Station Bandol/Barkheda, District Seoni, be released in
favour of the petitioner, if the trial is pending, on Supurdnama subject to the
following conditions:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 30-06-2026
13:11:39

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:45176
6 MCRC-8604-2026
a. The applicant shall furnish a personal bond of Rs.4,00,000/- along with

one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court;
b. The applicant shall not alienate, transfer, or create any third-party
interest in the vehicle;
c. The applicant shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the trial
Court;
d. The applicant shall not use the vehicle for any unlawful activity;
e. The applicant shall submit photographs of the vehicle and its
identification particulars before release;
f. The applicant shall furnish an undertaking that he shall abide by all
conditions imposed by the Court.
The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
rv

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 30-06-2026
13:11:39