IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

227

CRR-1328-2021

Date of Decision : 06.12.2022

Narinder Singh @ Ninder

..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

..... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA

Present :

Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru,

Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner has filed the present revision challenging the

order dated 25.08.2021, passed by the trial Court, whereby his

application for releasing the motorcycle make Bajaj Platina 110 bearing

registration No. PB-43-E-8810 on Sapurdari, was dismissed, in a case

arising out of FIR No. 129 dated 22.06.2021 registered under Section

21 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Samrala, Ludhiana.

Briefly stated, the petitioner was apprehended with 20

grams of smack along with drug money of Rs.40,000/- i.e. 20 currency

notes of Rs.2000/- each, while driving his aforesaid motorcycle. The

above-said FIR was registered against the petitioner and contraband

along with sample seized from his possession as well as the aforesaid

motorcycle was taken into possession by the police. The petitioner,

being registered owner of the above said motorcycle, filed application

for its release on Sapurdari which was dismissed by learned Judge,

Special Court, Ludhiana, vide impugned order dated 25.08.2021.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

RISHU KATARIA

2022.12.08 11:28

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRR-1328-2021

-2-

petitioner was falsely implicated in the case under the NDPS Act. The

petitioner was granted regular bail vide order dated 22.07.2021

(Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Ludhiana. The petitioner is the registered owner of the motorcycle in

question. There is no provision under the NDPS Act debarring the

release of the vehicle on sapurdari. Therefore, the instant revision

petition may be allowed, the impugned order may be set aside and the

motorcycle in question may be ordered to be released on sapurdari.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has argued that

the motorcycle in question was used by the petitioner for carrying

narcotic substance and being liable to confiscation cannot be ordered to

be released on sapurdari. However, on instructions he submits that the

motorcycle in question is not involved in any other criminal case.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone

through the record.

In CRR No.1765 of 2015 titled as Gurbinder Singh @

Shinder Vs. State of Punjab decided on 19.09.2016 Hon'ble Division

Bench of this Court observed as under:-

“21. …..... we have no hesitation to hold that there is no

provision under the NDPS Act debarring the release of the

vehicle for interim custody. The provision under Section

451 Cr.P.C. which is found not inconsistent with the

provisions of the NDPS Act is applicable to the vehicle

seized under the NDPS Act as well. No differential

treatment to the vehicle seized under the NDPS Act is

contemplated either under the provisions of the NDPS Act

or under the ratio laid down by the Court of law. In our

considered view, the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case

(supra) will apply to the vehicles seized under the NDPS

Act as well. Any contrary view taken by the Courts of law

would be against the interest of the owner of the vehicles,

the public at large and the State.

22. In the above facts and circumstances, we hold that the

RISHU KATARIA

2022.12.08 11:28

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRR-1328-2021

-3-

vehicle used for transporting the narcotic drugs and

psychotropic substances can also be released on sapurdari

invoking the provision under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The

reference is answered accordingly.”

Undisputedly, the trial in the aforesaid case is stil