CRLREV/662/2026 of ANAND BADAIK Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 10 September 2026

ORDER

10.09.2026

01.

1. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State.

2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 11th August, 2026 passed in connection with 2(a) C.C. No.500 of 2026 as at Annexure-1 corresponding to P.R. No.167 of 2025-2026 (Crl. Misc. Case No.100 of 2026) by learned J.M.F.C., Rural, Rourkela, whereby, an application under Section 503 BNSS moved by him seeking interim release and custody of the seizure vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-14AM-1126 in his favour has been rejected.

3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and approached the learned Court below with such an application under Section 503 BNSS but release of the same has been denied on the premise that the confiscation proceeding has been initiated in respect thereof and in view of bar under Section 72 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It is further submitted that this Court in Pratima Dalabehera Vrs. State of Odisha (CRLREV No.262 of 2024) by order dated 21st June, 2024 allowed such interim release and custody of the seizure vehicle referring to a judgment of a Co- ordinate Bench in Ratnakar Behera Vrs. State of Odisha reported in 2020 (III) ILR-CUT-172. It is also submitted that in identical cases, interim release and custody of the seizure vehicles has been allowed and while claiming so, a list of citations with a memo is filed today for the Court’s perusal. The submission is that notwithstanding the pendency of the confiscation proceeding vis-à-vis the alleged vehicle, the petitioner being the owner of the same should have been allowed to take its interim custody and therefore, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1 is liable to be interfered with followed by consequential directions issued.

4. Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, justifies the impugned decision by order dated 11th August, 2026 at Annexcure-1 contending that the learned court below did not commit any serious error or illegality in denying release of the seizure vehicle invoking the powers under Section 503 BNSS in view of the bar under Section 72 of the Act.

5. Perused the list of citations filed today by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. In fact, this Court in Pratima Dalabehera (supra) had allowed such release of the vehicle even though the confiscation proceeding was initiated and pending by then in view of the decision in Ratnakar Behera (supra) and regard being had to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vrs. State of Gujarat (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444.

6. On a reading of the judgment in Ratnakar Behera (supra), it has been held that the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to release the vehicle exercising powers under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C. and has taken reference of the bar under Section 72 of the Act. In view of the case laws cited by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and it has been held consistently that bar under Section 72 of the Act should not stand on the way in interim release of the seizure vehicle despite initiation & pendency of the confiscation proceeding and as the vehicle of the petitioner is lying in the custody of the local Excise P.S., this Court, recording the objection of Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State, is inclined and in favour of the interim release and custody of the vehicle of the petitioner with suitable conditions imposed in that regard. This Court is also alive to the settled legal position that any such seizure articles including conveyances detained pending investigation should be disposed of at the earliest as has been held by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra). In other words, the Court is inclined to direct the release of the vehicle, as an interim measure, in favour of the petitioner, who claims himself to the owner of the vehicle, but with conditions as deemed necessary in the fact and circumstances of the case.

7. Accordingly, it is ordered.

8. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 11th August, 2026 at Annexure-1 in Crl. Misc. Case No.100 of 2026 is hereby set aside with a direction to the learned J.M.F.C., Rural Rourkela to immediately release interim custody of the seizure vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-14AM-1126 in favour of the petitioner subject to verification of its ownership and by imposing such suitable conditions as considered to be necessary and expedient including a condition that such custody shall be subject to the outcome of the confiscation proceeding, hence, not to be disposed of till it is concluded.

9. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

T.Tudu

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 10-Sep-2026 18:32:21 Signature Not Verified