P&H HC Orders Conditional Release Of Fortuner To Registered Owner, Says Pending Probe Into Suspected Benami Ownership Alone Won’t Justify Indefinite Police Custody

Pankaj Goel sought relief under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, challenging the Special Judge, Ludhiana’s refusal to release a Toyota Fortuner Legender on superdari.

The vehicle was recovered from Sanjay Kanwar on 14.04.2025; the petitioner was recorded as its registered owner, and the charge-sheet in the criminal case had been filed.

The State opposed release, asserting that Kanwar had purchased the vehicle in the petitioner’s name and that a separate vigilance inquiry into suspected benami ownership was pending.

The petitioner maintained that the vehicle was not case property and was no longer required for investigation.

The petition was brought under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to former Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The Court applied the principle that a seized vehicle should not ordinarily remain unattended in police custody where continued physical retention is unnecessary and its production can be secured through appropriate conditions; release is not automatic and must account for statutory restrictions, proposed confiscation, and specific investigative needs.

In support, the Court referred to Rajnish Kumar and the Division Bench decision in Gurbinder Singh @ Shinder v. State of Punjab, 2016(4) RCR (Criminal) 492.

Interim release does not determine ownership or prevent lawful proceedings concerning the vehicle.

The petitioner was the registered owner according to the registering authority’s report, and the charge-sheet had been submitted in the criminal case.

Although the State alleged benami ownership and referred to a pending vigilance inquiry, it did not establish that continued physical retention was necessary for a specific investigative purpose.

The Court considered that evidentiary needs could be protected through photographs, videography, inspection, and conditions requiring preservation and production of the vehicle; it also noted the risk of deterioration during prolonged police custody.

Release would therefore address interim custody only, without resolving ownership or the merits of the vigilance inquiry.

It directed that the vehicle be released to the petitioner on superdari, subject to furnishing bonds and restrictions against transfer or alteration, and obligations to preserve and produce the vehicle when required.

Before release, the investigating agency could photograph, video-record, identify, and inspect it in accordance with law.

The State remained free to proceed lawfully regarding ownership, source of funds, or confiscation; the Court expressed no opinion on those matters.