JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

Challenging the release of the vehicle on superdari by the trial Court, bearing registration No. PB-05N-5677 (Maruti Van) vide order dated 16.09.2021, petitioner-UOI has come up before this Court by filing the present petition under Section 401 CrPC.

2. I have heard counsel for the parties, and its analysis would lead to the following outcome.

3. The relevant facts to decide the present petition are taken from the complaint (Annexure P-1) filed by the NCB, as per which, on 06.05.2019, specific information was received by an Intelligence Officer about Gurpreet Singh (respondent herein) that he is having a massive quantity of contraband and is going to sell the same to Jasvir Singh. Based on this information, NCB spotted the i20 Car and, from dicky of the car, recovered contraband prescribed under NDPS Act. The NCB seized the contraband and the car, and an investigation was carried out. After that, the abovesaid Maruti Van belonging to the respondent was also seized along with the contraband found from the dicky of the van.

4. The respondent Gurpreet Singh, filed an application (Annexure P-2) before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, for the release of Maruti Van on superdari, and a report was sought from the NCB and report dated 11.08.2021 (Annexure P-3) was also submitted by the NCB. In the superdari report, it is mentioned that a van can be released to the applicant, Gurpreet Singh, subject to their showing of bills of purchase and related documents in their name and subject to conditions of superdari along with surety bonds. Thus, in the entirety, NCB's objection was that seized vehicles only be disposed of under Sections 52 & 60 of the NDPS Act, and it was not appropriate for the concerned Court to release the car, and the same should not be released.

5. Vide the impugned order dated 16.09.2021, Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, ordered the release of the van in question on superdari, and the reasoning given in the said order is as under:-

"...this Court is satisfied about claim of applicant. In the present circumstances they seem to be the best claimant of the vehicle. Alleged facts are yet to be proved. Till then vehicle cannot be allowed to rust in the police premises. Supurdari is just a temporary release of vehicle subject to final claims of anybody else which can be determined at later stage also. So it is in the interest of justice that vehicle should be released on sapurdari to the applicant. As far as arguments of the NCB, vehicle is liable for confiscation under Section 60 can be decided after conclusion of trial. So objection of the NCB overruled in view of the circumstances of the case, as in case vehicle is not released, condition thereof will deteriorate.'

6. Vide the impugned order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, ordered the release of the car in question on superdari. The reasoning given by the Sessions Judge was that the vehicle was detained in the police station and its condition would deteriorate from time to time, and as such, it was released on superdari bonds for a sum of Rs.2 lacs.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the NCB has filed the present petition before this Court. The objection from NCB under Sections 52, 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act deals with confiscating vehicles. However, the concerned Court has only released the vehicle temporarily against bonds. Given the above, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

Petition dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.