Jagjit Singh t Singh v. State of Ha of Haryana CRM
Case Details
CRM-M- -56135-2025 1- -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGA DIGARH 179 Jagjit Singh t Singh v. State of Ha of Haryana CRM-M-56135-2025 Date of decision: 24.12.2025 .2025 …Petitioner. …Respondent. CORAM: AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. Present: Mr. N.S. Behgal, Advocate for ate for the petitioner. Ms. Shweta Nahata, DAG, Ha G, Haryana. **** AARADHN ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) 1. Challenge in the present pet nt petition is to order dated 5.7.202 .7.2025 (Annexure exure P-2) passed by learned Addition dditional Sessions Judge, Special Cou al Court under NDP r NDPS Act, Ambala, vide which t hich the application for releasing th sing the motorcycle rcycle bearing registration No. HR . HR-01-AJ-9269 on superdari to th i to the petitioner b ioner being its registered owner, was d was dismissed. 2. Relevant facts, as emerging fro ing from the documents on record, ma rd, may be noticed h ticed hereinbelow:- As per the case set up by pros prosecution, the petitioner was caug aught red hande nded while keeping in his illega llegal possession 7 grams ‘heroi eroin’ (marginally nally more than the small quantity ntity), which was recovered from h m his trouser wh r while he was driving motorcycle ycle No. HR-01-AJ-9269. Petition itioner was search arched in the presence of a Gaze Gazetted Officer when the aforesa resaid GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -56135-2025 2- -2 contraband band was recovered. It has not bee been denied that the petitioner is th is the registered red owner of the aforesaid vehicle hicle. After the statutory formaliti alities were comp omplied with, a formal case vide FI
Legal Reasoning
e FIR No. 55 dated 29.4.2025, und under Section 21, 21, 29 of NDPS Act, at Police Stati Station Naggal, came to be registe stered against th t the petitioner. The contraband band as also motorcycle bearin earing registration ation No. HR-01-AJ-9269 were tak taken into possession by the polic police authorities ities. On culmination of investigatio tigation, challan was filed in the Cour e Court. During the ng the pendency of trial, petitioner, th ner, the registered owner of motorcyc torcycle No. HR-01 01-AJ-9269, moved an applicat pplication for releasing the aforesa foresaid vehicle on le on superdari. The same was dismi dismissed by the learned Special Judg al Judge vide impu impugned order dated 5.7.2025 on the ground that in view o iew of questionabl tionable past antecedents of the pet e petitioner, who had already stand stands convicted i icted in case FIR No. 240 dated 28. ed 28.8.2004, u/s 302 of Indian Pen n Penal Code, regis , registered at Police Station Ambala mbala City and is also facing trial in a ial in as many as fo as four cases under the NDPS Act, , no case for taking a lenient view view is made out out in his favour. Learned Judge wa ge was further of the opinion that if th at if the vehicle is le is released on superdari, the like likelihood of it being misused fo sed for committing itting similar nature of offences is q is quite high. Aggrieved of the sa the said order, the p r, the present revision has been filed. 3. While assailing the impugned ugned order, manifold submissions hav ns have been raised raised. It has been contended that peti at petitioner has been falsely implicate plicated in the prese e present case and that even if the alle the allegations as alleged in the FIR a FIR are taken to be to be true at their face value, the co the contraband was recovered from th rom the personal po nal possession of petitioner and not d not from the motorcycle/vehicle, fo , for the said re aid reason, Sections 60(3) of NDPS NDPS Act would not come into pla to play. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -56135-2025 3- -3 Learned tri ned trial Judge, as is apparent from from the impugned order got over overly swayed by ed by the fact that petitioner has been as been convicted under Section 302 o 302 of Indian Pena n Penal Code and is also facing trial u trial under various cases of NDPS A PS Act (the details details mentioned in the order). Past a Past antecedents cannot be a ground round to deny the re the release of vehicle in question on s on on superdari to the petitioner, who who is the register egistered owner. Moreso, when there n there is nothing on record to sugge suggest that the sa the said vehicle was involved in a in a similar offence of like natur nature. Completion pletion of trial in the present case w case would take lot of time and if th d if the vehicle is n le is not released on superdari, it wi , it will be totally reduced to junk an unk and would not d not be pliable. Learned counsel ne sel next submits that if extended reli ed relief sought for, ht for, petitioner undertakes not to chan to change the identity of the vehicle an icle and would prod produce the same before the Court a ourt as and when required. 4. Per contra, learned State cou te counsel submits that NDPS Act is Act is a Special Sta ial Statute and a complete Code in de in itself. The said Act does n oes not contemplat mplate interim release of seized vehic vehicle during the pendency of trial. trial. It is further th ther the submission of learned State co tate counsel that the vehicle in questio question was used fo used for transporting the contraband an and and hence, as per the provisions o sions of Sections 60 ons 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act, the ct, the same is liable to be confiscate fiscated. Learned tri ned trial Judge did not err in law wh w while dismissing the application fo tion for releasing th sing the vehicle on superdari. More Moreso, considering the questionab tionable past antece antecedents of petitioner, who is invo is involved in 4 other similar cases o cases of like nature, nature, if released on superdari, there there is every likelihood of the vehic vehicle being used used for committing the offence of lik e of like nature again. 5. Having heard learned counsel ounsel for the parties and perusing th sing the documents ments on record, this Court expres expresses inability to agree with th ith the submission issions put forth by learned State coun e counsel. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -56135-2025 4- -4 6. It s settled that there is no sp no specific bar or restriction under th nder the provisions isions of NDPS Act for releasing t sing the seized vehicle on superda uperdari pending dis ing disposal of the trial. It has been s been consistently held that the seize e seized vehicle can le can be confiscated by learned trial d trial Court only on conclusion of tri of trial when the ac the accused is convicted/acquitted or ted or discharged. In Bishwajit Dey v. The State tate of Assam, 2025 (3) SCC 241, , the Hon’ble Su le Supreme Court has held as under: nder:- “21. Upon a reading of the f the NDPS Act, this Court is of th of the view that the seized vehicles icles can be confiscated by the tri e trial court only on conclusion of n of the trial when the accused sed is convicted or acquitted or disc discharged. Further, even where th re the Court is of the view that the v he vehicle is liable for confiscation, tion, it must give an opportunity of of hearing to the person who ma o may claim any right to the seized v zed vehicle before passing an order der of confiscation. However, the the seized vehicle is not liable ble to confiscation if the owner of the of the seized vehicle can prove that th at the vehicle was used by the acc accused person without the owner wner's knowledge or connivance and and that he had taken all reasonab nable precautions against such us h use of the seized vehicle by th y the accused person. 22. This Court is further her of the opinion that there is n is no specific bar/restriction under nder the provisions of the NDPS A S Act for return of any seized vehic ehicle used for transporting narcot rcotic drug or psychotropic substanc stance in the interim pending dispos sposal of the criminal case. 23. In the absence of any s ny specific bar under the NDPS A S Act and in view of Section 51 of 1 of NDPS Act, the Court can invok invoke the general power under Sect r.P.C. Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C for return of the seized vehic vehicle pending final decision of th of the criminal case. Consequently, tly, the trial Court has the discretio retion to release the vehicle in the in e interim. However, this power wou would GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -56135-2025 5- -5 have to be exercised in accor ccordance with law in the facts an ts and circumstances of each case. 24 to 28 XX X XX XX 29. Though seizure of dru drugs/substances from conveyanc ances can take place in a number o er of situations, yet broadly speakin eaking there are four scenarios in in which the drug or substance nce is seized from a conveyance. F ce. Firstly, where the owner of th of the vehicle is the person from wh whom the possession of contraban aband drugs/substance is recovered. red. Secondly, where the contraban aband is recovered from the possess session of the agent of the owner i. er i.e. like driver or cleaner hired b red by the owner. Thirdly, where th re the vehicle has been stolen by by the accused and contraband nd is recovered from such stolen tolen vehicle. Fourthly, where th e the contraband is seized / recove covered from a third-party occupa upant (with or without considerati eration) of the vehicle without an t any allegation by the police that that the contraband was stored an d and transported in the vehicle w le with the owner's knowledge an e and connivance. In the first two sc o scenarios, the owner of the vehic ehicle and/or his agent would neces ecessarily be arrayed as an accuse cused. In the third and fourth scenari nario, the owner of the vehicle and/o and/or his agent would not be arrayed rayed as an accused. 30. This Court is of the vie view that criminal law has not to b t to be applied in a vacuum but to the o the facts of each case. Consequentl uently, it is only in the first two scen scenarios that the vehicle may not b not be released on superdari till reve reverse burden of proof is discharge arged by the accused-owner. How However, in the third and four fourth scenarios, where no allegatio gation has been made in the charg harge- sheet against the owner and/ and/or his agent, the vehicle shou should normally be released in the in he interim on superdari subject to th to the owner furnishing a bond that that he would produce the vehicle a icle as and when directed by the Cou Court and/or he would pay the valu value of the vehicle as determined ined by the Court on the date of th of the release, if the Court is finall inally of the opinion that the vehic ehicle needs to be confiscated. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -56135-2025 6- -6 31. This Court clarifies tha s that the aforesaid discussion shou should not be taken as laying down a n a rigid formula as it will be open pen to the trial Courts to take a diffe different view, if the facts of the ca e case so warrant.” 7. In the present case, the cont e contraband allegedly was recovere covered from the p the possession of petitioner and not nd not from the vehicle. As has bee as been rightly poin ly pointed out by learned counsel for sel for the petitioner and has not bee ot been refuted by ed by learned State counsel, the vehi e vehicle is not involved in any oth y other case of like of like nature, the Court is also of the of the opinion that if allowed to reta to retain the vehicle ehicle, its value and utility would b ould be totally reduced and would n uld not remain plia in pliable. 8. In view of the above, the pre the present petition is allowed and th and the impugned o gned order dated 5.7.2025 is set aside t aside. The motorcycle in question estion is ordered to red to be released on superdari to ari to the satisfaction of the learne learned Additional tional Sessions Judge, Special Court u ourt under the NDPS Act, Ambala. 9. Before parting with this order order, it is made clear that in case th case the petitioner ioner or the vehicle is involved in any in any other case of the like nature, th , the present pet nt petition shall be deemed to have be ave been dismissed without any furth further reference to ence to this Court. mber 24, 2025 December gbs (AARADHNA SAWHNEY NEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document