IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.11.2025 Gurpritam Singh …Petitioner.

v.

State of Haryana …Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY.

Present: Mr. Vishal Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Haryana.

****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision is directed against order dated 31.7.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide which the application for release of truck bearing registration No. PB-11CR-8197 on superdari, was dismissed.

2. Relevant facts, as emerging from the documents on record, may be noticed hereinbelow:-

On 17.7.2025, on a secret information, a truck bearing registration No. PB-11CR-8197, was apprehended. From the dashboard of the said truck, 1.066 grams opium was recovered. At the said time, the truck was being driven by Yashpal Singh, son of Ami Chand, resident of Rajpura. Petitioner, who is son of Yashpal Singh, is the registered owner of the said truck. The truck was seized. Requisite statutory formalities were complied with and a formal case vide FIR No. 130 dated 17.7.2025, was registered against said Yashpal Singh, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, at Police Station Saha, District Amabala.

During pendency of investigation, an application for getting the aforesaid truck released on superdari was moved by petitioner, which came to be dismissed in terms of impugned order dated 31.7.2025. Aggrieved of the same, present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner, the registered owner of the vehicle was not present at the site when the alleged recovery of 1.066 grams of opinion was effected from his father, who was driving the said vehicle. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the fact of father of petitioner being earlier also involved in a NDPS case must have been in his (P) knowledge, thus, it can be presumed that in case the said vehicle is released, the likelihood of it being used for committing yet another offence of the like nature increases.

Learned counsel submits that reasoning given by learned Additional Sessions Judge is purely speculative, there being no bar under the NDPS Act, not to release the vehicle on superdari before conclusion of trial. It is also the submission of learned counsel that the truck in question is the only source of livelihood of petitioner. The completion of trial is likely to take lot of time and in case till the completion thereof, vehicle is allowed to stand in the Police Station, its value and utility would be considerably reduced. Further, as per learned counsel, petitioner undertakes to produce the said vehicle as and when required by trial Court and is willing to abide by the conditions so imposed while releasing the said vehicle on superdari.

Learned counsel has placed reliance on following two judgments of this Court, (i) Samay Singh v. State of Haryana, CRR 2885-2022 decided on 02.02.2023 and (ii) Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, CRR 867-2020 decided on 8.7.2020.

4. Status report by way of affidavit of Suresh Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barara, District Ambala has been filed, wherein the factual backdrop of the case leading to the lodging of the FIR has been elaborated upon. It has further been pointed out that the father of petitioner, i.e., accused in the present case has since been released on bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide order dated 27.8.2025. Further, the investigations have also been completed, for challan has been filed, but admittedly, none out of 13 witnesses has been examined. Learned State counsel submits that in view of huge quantity of contraband recovered from the vehicle in question as also considering that the accused in the present case (father of the petitioner) is already facing trial in another criminal case of like nature, possibility of vehicle being used for transporting contr