IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

251 Date of decision: 09.12.2025 Harmeet Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Tushar Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. AG, Haryana.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The instant revision petition has been filed against the order dated 01.02.2023, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby the application of the petitioner for the release of his vehicle, Maruti Swift Dzire VDI BS IV, bearing Registration No.HR-01-AK-6693 involved in case bearing FIR No.397 dated 15.10.2022, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Parao, Ambala Cantt., has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle. Tej Partap (brother-in-law of the petitioner) took the car on the pretext of some personal work. However, later, a contraband of 310 grams of heroin was recovered from the vehicle, whereupon the above-mentioned FIR was registered. The vehicle was impounded and taken into possession by the police and the same stands parked in the premises of the police station. On conclusion of the investigation, the chargesheet has been filed only against Tej Partap, i.e. brother-in-law of the petitioner. He further contends that the petitioner moved an application for release of the vehicle; however, the same was declined by the Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the investigation in the case is complete and that no purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle parked in the police station. The fact that the petitioner has not been nominated as an accused, hence, prima facie, the case weighs in favour of the petitioner herein.

4. Learned State Counsel, however, contends that the vehicle in question was involved in transporting a commercial quantity of heroin weighing 310 grams; hence, as per Sections 60 and 63 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, such a vehicle is liable to be confiscated and the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the said ground.

5. Responding to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment dated 30.09.2022 passed by this Court in CRM-M-28647-2022 titled as ‘Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Haryana’.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition.

7. Taking into consideration that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner would be corroborated vide judgment dated 30.09.2022 passed in CRM-M-28647-2022 titled as ‘Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Haryana’and taking into consideration that the objection under Section 60 and 63 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, would be available in case the respondent-police establish that the vehicle in question was being used with the knowledge or connivance of the owner or his agent, no such case has been projected by the respondents.

Hence, the applicability of the said provisions is yet to be assessed by the Trial Court. No purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle parked in the police station premises and turning it unfit for any use.

8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated

01.02.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, is set aside.

9. Respondents are directed to release the vehicle after conducting detailed videography in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in CRM-M-50791-2025 titled as ‘Amit Tanwar vs State of Haryana’. The relevant part of the order is extracted hereunder:

“28. The release of the vehicle mentioned above on superdari shall be subject to the petitioner taking the following steps, withi