Criminal Courts retain jurisdiction for interim release of vehicles despite pendency of excise confiscation proceedings.

The Petitioner, the registered owner of a Bajaj RE E-TEC 9.0 Auto (Regd. No. OD-02-CY-5464), sought the interim release of the vehicle which was seized in connection with 2(a) C.C. Case No. 279 of 2025 for an offence under Section 52(a)(i) of the Odisha Excise Act

The learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, rejected the application on 12.01.2026, holding that a confiscation proceeding under Section 71 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008, had already been initiated and that jurisdiction was barred under Section 72 of the same Act

The Petitioner contended that she was not an accused, had no knowledge of the offence, and was suffering financial hardship due to ongoing loan installments

1. Whether the bar of jurisdiction under Section 72 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008, precludes the Court from granting interim release of a vehicle during the pendency of confiscation proceedings

2. Whether the vehicle should be released to the owner to prevent its deterioration while in police custody

The Court applied Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C.), regarding the custody and disposal of property

Sections 71 and 72 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008, which provide for the confiscation of property and create a jurisdictional bar for Courts during such proceedings

The Court relied on the precedent Narayan Subudhi v. State of Odisha (CRLREV No. 1131 of 2025), which allowed interim release despite the statutory bar

The landmark Supreme Court decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 290, which mandates that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate in open spaces

The Court noted that while Section 71(3) and Section 72 of the Odisha Excise Act seemingly grant exclusive jurisdiction to the Collector/Authorized Officer regarding confiscated property, the judicial power to grant interim relief is not entirely extinguished where the owner is not an accused and the vehicle is at risk of damage from "vagaries of nature"

The Court observed that the Petitioner was not arrayed as an accused, the vehicle was hypothecated (with installments being paid), and the Petitioner had no criminal antecedents

Following the logic in Narayan Subudhi, the Court reasoned that the vehicle's preservation is paramount, and interim release does not prejudice the final outcome of the confiscation proceedings, as the release can be made subject to conditions ensuring the vehicle's availability

This release is subject to: (i) verification of ownership; (ii) a condition that the vehicle shall not be altered or transferred; and (iii) the final outcome of the pending confiscation proceedings. The Criminal Revision was accordingly disposed of.