P&H HC Orders Mercedes Released To Registered Owner On Superdari, Says Pending Benami Inquiry Alone Cannot Justify Indefinite Police Retention

In brief

The question

Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner on superdari where he was its registered owner and the charge-sheet had been filed

The court held

The revision was allowed and the Special Judge’s order was set aside.

It also directed

The vehicle was directed to be released to the petitioner on superdari, subject to bonds and conditions prohibiting its transfer or alteration, requiring its preservation and production when lawfully directed, and permitting the investigating agency to document and inspect it before release.

The Court expressly left ownership, source of consideration, and any liability to confiscation or other legal action open.

01Facts

The petitioner sought release on superdari of a Mercedes-Benz registered in his name, which police had seized after recovering it from accused Sanjay Kanwar in an FIR under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶ 1–2, 4, 6–7

The Special Judge dismissed the petitioner’s application.

¶ 1

The State opposed release on the ground that the car was allegedly purchased by Sanjay Kanwar in the petitioner’s name and was suspected to be benami property; a separate vigilance inquiry concerning the vehicle was pending.

¶ 4, 6–7

The charge-sheet in the criminal case had been filed.

¶ 6–7

The petitioner challenged the dismissal in a criminal revision.

¶ 1

02Issues

i.Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner on superdari where he was its registered owner and the charge-sheet had been filed

¶ 6–7, 9–10

ii.Whether the pending vigilance inquiry and suspicion of benami ownership justified continued physical retention of the vehicle by the police

¶ 4, 6–7, 9–10

03Law Applied

A seized vehicle should not ordinarily remain unattended in police custody when its continued physical retention is unnecessary and its production can be secured through appropriate conditions; prolonged custody may cause deterioration and loss of value.

¶ 7–8

Release on superdari is not automatic and must be assessed on the case-specific facts, including any statutory restriction, proposed confiscation, or specific investigative need.

¶ 7–8

Relevant evidence may be preserved through photographs, a detailed inventory, and inspection, while conditions can secure the vehicle’s production.

¶ 7–8

The Court relied on Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2021(2) PLR 85, and the Division Bench decision in Gurbinder Singh @ Shinder v. State of Punjab, 2016(4) RCR (Criminal) 492, on interim release of seized vehicles subject to applicable law and safeguards.

¶ 8

The petitioner also cited Nafe Singh v. Devender Kumar, 2004(1) RCR (Crl.) 987.

¶ 3

The judgment identifies no specific statutory provision governing the superdari application.

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 7

04Reasoning

The petitioner was recorded as the vehicle’s registered owner, and the charge-sheet had been submitted in the criminal case.

¶ 6–10

Although the vehicle had been recovered from Sanjay Kanwar and the State alleged benami ownership, the Court held that the pending inquiry alone did not establish a need to retain the vehicle indefinitely.

¶ 6–10

The State could preserve evidence through photographs, videography, recording identifying particulars, and inspection, and the petitioner could be required to preserve and produce the vehicle.

¶ 7–10

The Court therefore found that interim release could be granted without deciding beneficial ownership, the source of funds, or potential confiscation.

¶ 6–10