Pankaj Goel vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-23617-2026 (O&M) - 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
126-2
CRM-M-23617-2026 (O&M)
Decided on : 04.11.2026
Pankaj Goel . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Arjun Kapoor, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Manjinder S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab.

SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral)
1. Petitioner – Pankaj Goel, has filed the instant petition under
Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 482 Cr.P.C.), seeking
quashing of impugned order dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure P-5), passed by
learned Special Judge, Ludhiana, whereby application (Annexure P-4),
seeking release of Toyota Fortuner Legender, bearing registration No. CH-
01CW-0815 and Chassis No. MBJAA3GS100612050-0424, on superdari in
favour of petitioner, has been dismissed.
2. At the outset, for reference, brief facts of the case, as noticed in
paragraph No.2 of impugned order dated 09.10.2025 (P-5), are reproduced
here-under:-
“Stated briefly, the case of the applicant is that he is the Registered Owner
of the said vehicle. He has got it financed from ICICI Bank and he is
regularly paying monthly installments of Rupees 64,698/- each. The police
of Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana has registered the case against accused
Sanjay Kanwar. He took the said vehicle from applicant in emergency
circumstances. Accused was arrested and at that time, the said vehicle was
JAWALA RAM recovered from him vide Recovery Memo dated 14.04.2025. Since then, the
2026.11.05 20:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23617-2026 (O&M) - 2 -
vehicle is lying in Police Station. Applicant requires the same for his
personal use. Earlier, Report from concerned Registering Authority was
awaited. Now, the same has come, verifying the applicant as Registered
Owner of the vehicle in question. Charge Sheet has been submitted, but no
fact has come on record in connection with the involvement of the vehicle
in the crime of the present case. The vehicle is not the case property. There
is no provision in Police Station to protect the vehicle. The same may be
misused without any reasonable cause. In case, it gets damaged, the
applicant will suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be
compensated in terms of money or otherwise. The vehicle is no more
required by the police for further investigation. The vehicle is never
involved in any criminal activity in past. It is getting deteriorated. The
applicant undertakes to produce it as and when required.”
3. By relying upon judgments of this Court rendered in (i) Rajesh
Kumar v. State of Haryana , 2021(2) PLR 85 : Law Finder Doc Id
#1802898 , and (ii) Nafe Singh v. Devender Kumar , 2004(1) RCR (Crl.)
987 : Law Finder Doc ID #67395 , petitioner's counsel prays for release of
vehicle on superdari in his favour.
4. In response to petition, status report dated 26.05.2026, by way
of affidavit of SSP, Vigilance Bureau, Range Ludhiana, has been filed on
behalf of respondent-State.
While opposing the petition, learned State counsel submits that
vehicle in question was taken into police possession, as it was recovered
from accused Sanjay Kanwar. It is further submitted that said vehicle was
purchased by accused Sanjay Kanwar in the name of present petitioner –
Pankaj Goel. Moreover, Vigilance Inquiry No.03/2025-Ludhiana, in respect
of said vehicle, is being conducted by Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana. Thus,
according to respondent-State, vehicle is still required for investigation on
the suspicion that it is benami property of accused Sanjay Kanwar. On these
JAWALA RAM
2026.11.05 20:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23617-2026 (O&M) - 3 -
grounds, learned State counsel submits that instant petition is devoid of
merit and is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused impugned
order and record, and considered judgments cited at the Bar.
6. As per report received from concerned Registering Authority,
petitioner is recorded as registered owner of vehicle in question. However,
respondent-State has opposed its release on the ground that same was
allegedly purchased by accused Sanjay Kanwar in petitioner's name and is
suspected to be his benami property. It is further the stand of respondent-
State that a separate Vigilance Inquiry No.03/2025-Ludhiana, in respect of
said vehicle, is being conducted by Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana.
In this regard, it is necessary to distinguish between the
question of interim custody of vehicle and the question of its ultimate
ownership or liability to confiscation, if any. Release of a vehicle on
superdari does not, by itself, determine the rights of parties in respect of its
ownership, nor does it preclude the investigating agency or competent
authority from proceeding in accordance with law in respect of any
allegation concerning its actual ownership or source of funds.
7. It is required to be noticed that vehicle in question was
recovered from accused Sanjay Kanwar on 14.04.2025. As noticed in
impugned order, charge-sheet has also been submitted in the criminal case.
The applicant's case before learned Special Judge was that vehicle is not
case property and is no longer required by police for further investigation.
On the other hand, respondent-State has referred to pendency of a separate
vigilance inquiry concerning suspected benami ownership of vehicle.
JAWALA RAM
2026.11.05 20:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23617-2026 (O&M) - 4 -
Mere pendency of an inquiry, by itself, would not necessarily
justify keeping a valuable vehicle in police custody for an indefinite period.
The relevant consideration is whether physical retention of vehicle is
actually required for any specific investigative purpose or whether its
evidentiary and other requirements can adequately be safeguarded by
imposing appropriate conditions while releasing it on superdari . The
investigating agency can preserve relevant evidence by taking photographs,
preparing a detailed inventory and carrying out any necessary inspection of
vehicle, in accordance with law. Its continued physical retention would
require justification with reference to a specific investigative or legal
necessity.
8. The principle governing interim custody of seized vehicles has
been considered by this Court in Rajnish Kumar's case (supra). In that case,
vehicle was allegedly being used in violation of provisions of Haryana
Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, and the request for its
release on superdari had been declined by the competent authority. While
considering the issue, this Court referred to judgment rendered by a Division
Bench of this Court in Gurbinder Singh @ Shinder v. State of Punjab ,
2016(4) RCR (Criminal) 492 , wherein it was observed that vehicles seized
in criminal cases can be released on interim custody, subject to applicable
statutory provisions, as no useful purpose is served by keeping them
unattended in police premises, where they may deteriorate.
The underlying principle emerging from aforesaid judgments is
that a seized vehicle should not ordinarily be allowed to remain unattended
in police custody when its continued physical retention is not necessary and
JAWALA RAM
2026.11.05 20:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23617-2026 (O&M) - 5 -
its production during proceedings can be secured through appropriate
safeguards. At the same time, such release is not automatic and has to be
considered in the light of facts of each case, including any statutory
restriction, proposed confiscation or specific requirement of investigation.
9. Adverting to facts of present case, petitioner is recorded as
registered owner of vehicle in question in the report of concerned
Registering Authority. Vehicle was recovered from accused Sanjay Kanwar
on 14.04.2025 and, as noticed in impugned order, charge-sheet has been
submitted in the criminal case. Respondent-State has opposed release
primarily on the ground that vehicle is suspected to be benami property of
accused Sanjay Kanwar and a separate vigilance inquiry is pending in that
regard.
It is also relevant that vehicle is a valuable movable asset and its
prolonged retention in police premises may result in deterioration and loss of
value. Such a situation would serve no useful purpose if physical custody of
vehicle is not otherwise required. In the facts and circumstances noticed
above, interests of investigation can adequately be protected by directing
petitioner to furnish appropriate superdari bonds and comply with
conditions regarding preservation and production of vehicle.
10. In view of aforesaid discussion, and without expressing any
opinion on the allegation concerning benami ownership or on merits of the
pending vigilance inquiry, this Court is of the considered view that
continued retention of vehicle in police custody is not warranted, subject to
verification that no statutory restraint or specific investigative requirement
prevents its release. Petitioner, being registered owner, is accordingly held
JAWALA RAM
2026.11.05 20:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23617-2026 (O&M) - 6 -
entitled to interim custody of vehicle on superdari , subject to stringent
conditions.
11. Resultantly, instant petition is allowed . Impugned order dated
09.10.2025 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned Special Judge, Ludhiana, is
hereby set aside. Vehicle in question, i.e. Toyota Fortuner Legender bearing
registration No. CH-01CW-0815 and Chassis No. MBJAA3GS100612050-
0424, is directed to be released on superdari in favour of petitioner, subject
to his furnishing superdari bonds to satisfaction of learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate concerned, and further subject to following conditions:-
(i) Petitioner shall not sell, transfer, alienate, mortgage or create
any third-party interest in vehicle during pendency of
proceedings, without prior permission of competent Court;
(ii) Petitioner shall maintain vehicle in its present condition and
shall not make any alteration in its identity, chassis number,
engine number or other identifying particulars;
(iii) Petitioner shall not part with possession of vehicle in a manner
which may frustrate its production before the Court or
investigating agency, as and when required in accordance with
law;
(iv) Petitioner shall produce vehicle before learned trial Court or
investigating agency, as and when directed in accordance with
law, and shall extend full cooperation in the pending
proceedings/inquiry;
(v) Before release, investigating agency shall be at liberty to take
photographs and videography of vehicle, record its identifying
particulars and carry out any inspection required for the
purposes of investigation, in accordance with law.
It is clarified that observations made herein are confined to
consideration of interim custody of vehicle on superdari and shall not be
JAWALA RAM
2026.11.05 20:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23617-2026 (O&M) - 7 -
construed as an expression of opinion on its actual beneficial ownership,
source of consideration, or its liability to confiscation or any other action
under applicable law. Respondent-State shall remain at liberty to proceed in
respect of said vehicle in accordance with law, and petitioner shall remain
bound by any order passed by a competent Court or authority having
jurisdiction.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly .
Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
November 04, 2026
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
JAWALA RAM
2026.11.05 20:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document