IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-56831-2024 Mukesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CRM-M-57150-2024 Mukesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT OPERATIVE PART RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON PRONOUNCED OR FULL

01.10.2025 17.11.2025 FULL PRONOUNCED CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Abhinav Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rakesh Jangra, AAG, Haryana.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1. This order shall dispose of two petitions as mentioned above. For brevity, facts have been taken from CRM-M-56831-2024, titled Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana. 2. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application for release of vehicles, i.e., Tractor and car, the petitioner, being the Special Power of Attorney holder of the registered owner of the vehicle, has come up before this Court, seeking its release.

3. The petitioner has attached a copy of the registration certificate as Annexure P2. The Registration Certificate for the Tractor states that it has been registered in the name of Mahender, s/o Bhagirath. The chassis No. is KZBDR1123185S3; Engine No. 4105NU14E1058218F16; Model number D1 60 HDM + S2. The tractor is hypothecated to RBL Bank Limited and has been registered under registration number HR24AE2163.

4. The other vehicle is a Tata Harrier, and the Registration Certificate states that the tractor in question has been registered in the name of Mahender, s/o Bhagirath. The chassis No. is MAT631115LPA50924; Engine No. 46336890-4060241; Model number HARRIER XZ 2.0 L KRYOTEC BSIV. The SUV is hypothecated to SK Finance Limited and has been registered under registration number HR-52G-5151.

5. Vide Annexure P1, the registered owner, Mahender, has given power of attorney in favor of the petitioner, Mukesh, regarding the above-captioned tractor and car.

6. The tractor and car in question were taken into possession by the police because of their involvement in FIR No. 297 dated 29th October 2023 registered in the police station Nathu Sarai Chopta, District. Sirsa, Haryana, for the Commission of offences punishable under sections 302, 323, 341, 506, 147, 148, 149, 212, 427, & 506 IPC. The copy of the FIR is attached as Annexure P3.

7. The power of attorney holder Mukesh Kumar, present petitioner, filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, for the release of the tractor and SUV on Superdari. The learned Additional Session Judge issued notices and called for responses, and, as per the responses dated 23rd August 2024, the Investigator opposed and objected to the release of the tractor and SUV on the grounds of their involvement in a heinous criminal offense. Based on such objection, vide the impugned orders dated 23rd August 2024, passed by the Additional Session Judge, Sirsa, the said application for release was dismissed.

8. A perusal of the impugned orders dated 23rd August 2024 passed by Sessions Judge Sirsa, points out that the tractor was not released because investigation was not complete and some of the co-accused were yet to be arrested and if the vehicle is not produced before the trial court at the appropriate stage, then it will weaken the case of the prosecution and as such vehicle was not released.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the power of attorney holder Mukesh Kumar had come up before this court under Section 528 of the BNSS 2023.

10. Vide orders dated 14th November 2024 and 19^th November 2024, a coordinate bench of this Court had issued notices. Pursuant to that, the concerned DySP has filed their replies dated 2nd December 2024 and 17th December 2024. A perusal of the reply clearly points out that the tractor and car were used by the accused persons in the heinous offense.

11. The counsel for the petitioner seeks release of the tractor and SUV, whereas counsel for the State opposes the same on the ground as mentioned in the order passed by the Additional Session Judge while dismissing the application for the release.

12. In Amit