130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :12.02.2026 Gurwinder Singh @ Motta .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Dilpreet Singh Gandhi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Ramta Chowdhary, DAG, Punjab.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the impugned order dated 04.06.2024 passed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Amritar, vide which an application filed by the petitioner for release of the vehicle on superdari i.e. car Toyota Fortuner bearing registration No.PB-46-Y-6600, to the petitioner has been dismissed in a case FIR No.74 dated 29.06.2023, under Sections 21 and 29 of NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Khilchian, District Amritsar.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the police party while on patrolling, stopped a white Toyota Fortuner bearing registration No.PB-46-Y- 6600 on suspicion, but the driver of the car instead of stopping the same, tried to turn behind. However, the driver of the car was apprehended by the police and on asking, he disclosed his name to be Gurwinder Singh @ Mota (petitioner). He was suspected to be carrying some contraband and thus, search of the car was conducted. On conducting search of the car as well of the person of the petitioner, 500 grams of heroin, one empty magazine, 32 bore pistol and five live cartridges were recorded. He failed to produce the licence regarding the possession of the same and thus, he was arrested on the spot and the car was confiscated by the police. The FIR was registered and the investigation commenced. Thereafter, during the trial, the petitioner moved an application before learned ASJ, Amritsar for releasing the said vehicles on superdari, however, after hearing both the sides, the same was declined vide order dated 04.06.2024. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and the same was confiscated by the authorities in the said FIR. He submits that during the trial, an application was filed by the petitioner before learned ASJ, Amritsar, however, the same was illegally declined vide order dated 04.06.2024. He has placed reliance on the judgments in Bishwajit Dey vs. The State of Assam in Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2025, decided on 07.01.2025, Rabindra Kumar Behera vs. State of Odisha, in CRLREV No.503 of 2022, decided on 15.01.2025 and Sanju vs. The State of Haryana, in CRM-M-14356- 2022 decided on 02.08.2022 and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 380 and has submitted that in the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and vehicle in question be released on superdari to the petitioner. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. She has submitted that during the investigation, the petitioner was found to be involved in the business of selling heroin alongwith co-accused Sukhdev Singh. She, thus, submits that learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle in question on superdari on the ground that the vehicle was freezed by the competent authority concerned.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the dispute involved in the present case is regarding superdari of the vehicle bearing registration No.PB-46-Y-6600. Admittedly, the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and the same is lying in police custody since 29.06.2023, and further that its continued retention is not necessary for the purpose of trial. Keeping the vehicle stationed at the police station would only result in its deterioration.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again has held