Conditions imposed for sapurdari/superdari must be reasonable and not punitive, ensuring the production of seized property without imposing oppressive financial burdens.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) seeking modification of the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, SAS Nagar (Mohali), in case FIR No.RC0052025A0010 dated 05.05.2025, registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’), at Police Station CBI ACB Branch, Sector 30, Chandigarh, to the extent of reducing the sapurdari/superdari bond amount fixed as 10,00,000/- for vehicle in question and Rs.1,00,000/- for mobile phone in question.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is the lawful owner and possessor of the Hyundai Grand i10, Model 2016, bearing Registration No. UP-27-AF-0743, and the mobile phone, i.e., iPhone 12, IMEI No. 354038647150335, which were seized by the Investigating Agency at the time of the petitioner’s arrest. Learned counsel has further argued that, vide order dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner has been granted the concession of regular bail by the concerned Court in relation to the FIR in question. It is further submitted that, vide impugned order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P-2), while allowing the application of the petitioner seeking release of the aforesaid vehicle and mobile phone on sapurdari/superdari, the learned Special Judge, CBI, has imposed sapurdari/superdari bonds of Rs.10,00,000/- in respect of the said vehicle and Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of the said mobile phone, each with one surety of the like amount, in addition to imposing certain other conditions. Learned counsel has urged that the bond amount imposed by the learned special Judge is excessive and disproportionate to the actual value and condition of the vehicle (being a 2016 model with substantially depreciated market value) and the mobile phone (a four-year-old personal device with negligible residual value). The imposition of such a heavy monetary burden, it is argued, defeats the very purpose of granting sapurdari/superdari, particularly when the petitioner has limited financial means and is unable to furnish such onerous bond and surety amounts. It is further argued that it is well-settled that the conditions imposed for sapurdari/superdari must be reasonable and not oppressive, especially when their sole objective is to ensure production of the property as and when required by the Court. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by all other conditions imposed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order. On the strength of these submissions, learned counsel prays for allowing the present petition and seeks modification of the impugned order to the limited extent of reducing the bond and surety amounts.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has filed reply dated 04.12.2025 on behalf the respondent-CBI, in the Court today, which is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has opposed the prayer of the petitioner by arguing that, on a complaint dated 30.04.2024 received by one Bhawandeep Singh Hehar and upon having verification report dated 30.04.2025 of the Inspector, CBI, ACB, Chandigarh, the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting bribe to the tune of Rs.27,000/- from one Paramjit, Munshi of the complainant and was apprehended on 05.05.2025. Thereafter, he has been