IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19936-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision: 08.05.2026 Nirmal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur in case arising out of FIR No. 32 dated 09.03.2022, registered under Sections 18 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur, whereby an application filed by the petitioner, who is special power of attorney holder of Ram Raj, seeking release of vehicle make Verna bearing registration number RJ-08-CC-

0013, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is contrary to the settled principles governing release of seized vehicles during pendency of trial. It is argued that the petitioner is not an accused in the aforementioned FIR and is only the special power of attorney holder of the registered owner of the vehicle, who is Ram Raj and has been duly authorize to get the vehicle released on sapurdari on his behalf, vide Annexure P-6. The said vehicle has been lying parked in the police station and if retained for an indefinite period, the same would deteriorate and become junk, thereby causing irreparable loss to the owner. Learned counsel further submits that the son of the petitioner, namely Harnoor Singh, has also been falsely implicated in the present FIR. The investigation in the present case already stands completed and challan under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. has been presented. Therefore, continued retention of the vehicle serves no useful purpose. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 (1) RCR (Criminal) 380 to submit that seized vehicles should not be allowed to remain stationed in police premises for long durations and should ordinarily be released on sapurdari subject to appropriate terms and conditions. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and undertakes not to alienate, transfer or alter the vehicle in any manner and to produce the same before the trial Court as and when directed. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 13.02.2024 be set aside and the vehicle in question be ordered to be released on sapurdari in favour of the petitioner.

3. Reply has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that commercial quantity of opium was recovered from the vehicle in question and the same is liable to confiscation under the provisions of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the registered owner of the vehicle has also been nominated as an accused. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly declined the prayer for release of the vehicle on Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that commercial quantity of opium was recovered from the vehicle in question and the same is liable to confiscation under the provisions of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the registered owner of the vehicle has also been nominated as an accused and is yet to be arrested. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly declined the prayer for release of the vehicle on superdari. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. This Court has heard the rival submissions.

5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial Court declined release of the vehicle primarily on two considerations; firstly, that recovery of 10 kilograms of opium, which falls within the category of commercial quantity and second