01Facts
The petitioner sought release on superdari of a Mahindra Bolero, registration No. PB07-BX-3678, seized in connection with an FIR under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
pp. 1-2The police opposed release, stating that 10 grams of heroin had been recovered from the petitioner while he was travelling in the vehicle, that the vehicle was used in the sale of heroin, and that its ownership remained unverified.
pp. 1-2The Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, rejected the application on 1 March 2025.
pp. 1-2Before the High Court, the petitioner produced a certified registration certificate showing him as the vehicle’s registered owner.
pp. 1-202Issues
i.Whether the vehicle seized in an NDPS case should be released on superdari during the pendency of trial where the petitioner establishes registered ownership.
pp. 2-3ii.Whether the trial court could reject the superdari application on the basis that ownership had not been verified, without seeking a report from the police.
p. 203Law Applied
Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, were the provisions under which the FIR was registered; the judgment did not identify a specific statutory provision governing interim release of the vehicle.
p. 2Relying on Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam, 2025(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 486, the Court applied the principle that a vehicle seized in connection with an NDPS offence may be released on superdari during trial, since prolonged storage in police custody risks deterioration and serves no useful purpose.
p. 2It also relied on Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, which recognises that seized vehicles need not be kept at police stations for long periods and may be released subject to appropriate bonds, guarantees, or security.
p. 3Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 21Section 29
04Reasoning
The Court found that the trial court’s ownership concern was no longer material because the petitioner produced a certified registration certificate showing him as the registered owner.
pp. 2-3It further observed that, even if ownership required verification, the trial court should have sought a police report rather than rejecting the application on that ground.
pp. 2-3The allegation that the vehicle had been used in narcotics activity did not justify keeping it in police custody throughout the trial, particularly given the risk of deterioration; the trial court could address any concerns by imposing appropriate conditions on release.
pp. 2-305Holding
The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 1 March 2025.
p. 3It directed that vehicle No. PB07-BX-3678 be released to the petitioner, as its registered owner, on superdari, subject to the usual terms and conditions imposed by the trial court.
p. 3Original Court PDF
Labhjit Singh Alias Lovejit SinghvsState Of Punjab
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
