IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sakattar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT OPERATIVE PART RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON PRONOUNCED OR FULL

01.10.2025 14.11.2025 FULL PRONOUNCED CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

15 12.02.2025 Kalanaur, 103, 190, 191(5), 61(2) BNS District Gurdaspur, Punjab and 25/27 of Arms Act

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application for the release of the vehicle, Royal Enfield Bullet-350 Motorbike bearing Registration No. PB-02-DW-2004 on superdari, the petitioner claiming to be its registered owner, has come up before this court, seeking its release.

2. Petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, and he purchased the same in the year 2019. He further submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the accused nominated in the FIR captioned above are not known to the petitioner, and that his vehicle has been wrongly confiscated.

3. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the file, and its analysis would lead to the following outcome.

4. This pronouncement deals only with the release of vehicles and none else, and that too only those vehicles which are not required to be confiscated under any Statute or Judicial Orders.

5. In the present case, the statute that has been invoked does not provide for the vehicle's confiscation, as is provided for under §60(3) of the NDPS Act, 1985, §17(1) Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, [HGSG Act], etc., if a vehicle is used in the commission of a crime, it may be confiscated. In the instant case, the offence is under the BNS, 2023, and, irrespective of the trial's outcome, the vehicle cannot be confiscated for compensation or any other purpose; the only purposes for which the vehicle is required are identification or the collection of evidence from the vehicle and in this category, even perishable items have the same evidentiary status such as Medico-Legal Certificates, Postmortem Examination Reports, reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chemical Examiners, and Ballistic Experts. It shall be relevant to extract §497 from the CHAPTER XXXVI of BNSS, 2023, that deals with the DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY, and it reads as follows:

497. (1) When any property is produced before any Criminal Court or the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance or commit the case for trial during any investigation, inquiry or trial, the Court or the Magistrate may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the investigation, inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court or the Magistrate may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "property"

includes—

(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody;

(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

(2) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of fourteen days from the production of the property referred to in sub-section (1) before it, prepare a statement of such property containing its description in such form and manner as the State Government may, by rules, provide.

(3) The Court or the Magistrate shall cause to be taken the photograph and if necessary, sub-section (1).

(4) The statement prepared under sub-section (2) and the photograph or the videography taken under sub-section (3) shall be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Sanhita. (5) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within