Judgment

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.

By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 23.04.2021 passed by Ld. Judge Special Court, Pathankot, whereby prayer made on behalf of petitioner for release of Truck bearing registration No. JK-03C-7383 on supurdari has been declined.

2. Briefly stating, facts of the case are that the petitioner was implicated in FIR No.116 dated 11.06.2020 under Sections 25 , 54, 59 of ARMS ACT , Section 3 , 4, 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Section 13 , 157, 18, 189B, 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short ‘the Act’) Police Station Sadar Pathankot. Allegations levelled against the petitioner were of procuring and transporting weapons from Amritsar to Kashmir for Lashkar-e-toiba terrorist activities in Kashmir in the Truck owned by him bearing registration No.JK-03C-7383.

3. In the present case, the investigating has been concluded and petitioner was released on default bail vide order dated 08.02.2021. Having been released on bail, the petitioner being owner of Truck in question moved an application for its release on supurdari, but said prayer was declined by Judge Special Court, Pathankot vide order dated 23.04.2021 with the observations that in case, the vehicle was released on supurdari, petitioner/applicant would commit the offence for carrying arms so as to cause loss of security to the country.

4. Impugning the aforesaid order dated 23.04.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle is lying idle at Police Station in open for the past almost three years now and would be rendered junk and useless in case it is not released on Superdari. He also submits that vehicle in question was used for transportation of goods by the petitioner and his family so as to earn his livelihood. Learned counsel further submits that the release can be ordered against heavy bonds/security. Pointing out towards Chapter V of the Act and in particular Sections 24 -26 thereof, learned counsel vehemently submits that the investigating agency has not taken any step towards the confiscation of the vehicle in question as per the procedure contemplated therein and thus, there was no use of keeping the vehicle in question in Police Station. In support thereof, learned counsel refers to two judgments viz. “ Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat ” in SLP (Criminal) No.2745 of 2002 and Delhi High Court judgment in Manjit Singh Vs. State in CRL. M.C. 4485 of 2013 decided on 10.09.2014.

5. On the other hand, prayer made herein has been opposed by learned State counsel while submitting that allegations levelled against petitioner are of serious nature and in case, the vehicle in question is released in his favour, in all probability the same is going to be used against the interest of nation for different terrorist activities. As regards procedure prescribed under Chapter V of the Act, learned State counsel while referring to short reply dated 30.03.2022/ 31.03.2022 admits that no steps have been initiated for the purpose of confiscation of Truck in question as per the procedure laid down under Section 24 read with Section 25 thereof.

6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the paper-book as well as the law cited at the Bar. I find force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Practically, the average life of a transport vehicle like Truck is around 15- 20 years only and with respect to the vehicle in question, 03 years have already passed, it lying idle in the police station serving no purpose; rather it is a burden on the State itself. It was in this context only that in Sunderbhai’s