ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application by the Judicial Magistrate Gurugram, on 13th November 2024, for release of the vehicle on superdari, and also the dismissal of the Criminal Revisions by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, on 08th April 2025 and 20th August 2025, the petitioner, claiming to be the registered owner of the vehicle, has come up before this Court, seeking its release.

2. The vehicle mentioned above [Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No. HR-19P-7167], was seized in FIR No. 622, registered on 10-10-2024 in Police Station Sector 10A, Gurugram, for Commission of offences punishable under sections 110, 115(2), 3(5), 351(3), 117(2) & 118(2) of BNS 2023.

3. The victim had alleged in the FIR about an assault by the assailants who had come in a white car, model ‘Swift’, which had no registered number plate. Later, the investigation led to evidence of the present vehicle's use in the crime, which is sought to be released in this petition.

4. The petitioner has attached a photocopy of the Registration Certificate as Annexure P-2. A perusal of the Registration Certificate reveals that the petitioner, Amit Tanwar, is the registered owner of the car. There is no dispute about ownership or the registration certificate, but the prosecution's dispute and the grounds of dismissal are altogether

different.

5. Vide order dated 13th November 2024, Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, dismissed the application for release of the vehicle filed by the petitioner because the police have objections to its release, because it is a case property, and because some of the accused are yet to be arrested.

6. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said application, the registered owner approached the Sessions Court.

7. Vide order dated 8th April 2025, the Additional Sessions Court dismissed the application by referring to the contents of paragraph 3, in which the word “Auto” was written instead of “Car”. Undoubtedly, in the present age of computers, when lawyers use copy-and-paste, such errors can happen. A simple statement by the lawyer that the words “Auto” meant “Swift Car” would have served the purpose, but it was neither requested by the Applicant nor proposed by the Additional Sessions Judge in pursuit of substantial justice.

8. The petitioner again filed a criminal revision petition before the same Sessions Court, and this time correctly mentioned the vehicle as a car. However, this time, the Additional District and Session Judge found a new ground to dismiss the same and stated that the second revision petition is not maintainable.

9. A perusal of the orders dated 8th April 2025 and 20th August 2025, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram, clearly points out that the learned Judge did not do substantial justice.

10. Once the first revision petition was dismissed not on merits but on a technical ground, then the second revision petition was maintainable.

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

12. 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.

13. 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 Exam