IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6342-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.02.2026 Sukhdev Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar in case arising out of FIR No. 199 dated 29.11.2025, registered under Sections 21(c) and 27(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Division A, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar, whereby an application filed by the petitioner seeking release of vehicle make Fortuner bearing registration number PB-02-EN-6072 in his favour, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the aforementioned car, which was lawfully financed from Chola Mandalam Investment & Finance Company by availing a loan of ₹5,38,541/- and the petitioner is regularly paying monthly instalments of ₹30,605/-. The ownership and subsisting loan liability are duly supported by the registration certificate, loan documents and account statement placed on record. It is argued that the petitioner had given the said vehicle on rent only for a limited period of two months, i.e. from 14.11.2025 to 14.01.2026, to Vijay son of Dalbir Singh for his personal use, on the basis of a written self-declaration/affidavit expressly prohibiting misuse or further handing over of the vehicle. However, Vijay breached the terms of the said declaration and unauthorizedly handed over the vehicle to his brother Jog Singh, who was subsequently arrested in the aforementioned FIR, without any knowledge, consent or connivance of the petitioner.

3. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that immediately after coming to know of the seizure, the petitioner moved an application dated 08.12.2025 for release of the vehicle on sapurdari, but the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide impugned order dated 22.01.2026 in a mechanical manner, without considering the petitioner’s bona fide ownership, absence of criminal involvement, continuing financial liability towards the financier and the settled legal position. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bishwajit Day v. State of Assam, 2025(1) RCR (Criminal) 486 to submit that there is no statutory bar under the NDPS Act against interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial. It is argued that continued retention of the vehicle in police custody serves no useful purpose, causes undue hardship to the petitioner and financier and would result in deterioration of the vehicle. It is, thus, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. He has submitted that the vehicle in question was used in the commission of a serious offence under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, and therefore, its release at this stage may adversely affect the prosecution case. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the dismissal of the petition is prayed for. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, namely Toyota Fortuner bearing registration number PB-02-EN-6072 and that the same is under a subsisting loan with a financial institution, the liability whereof is still being discharged by the petitioner. It is also evident from the material placed on record that