Punjab and Haryana High CourtCriminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

P&H HC Orders Registered Owner’s Bolero Released On Superdari Despite 10g Heroin Seized From Him

Labhjit Singh Alias Lovejit Singhv.State Of Punjab

P&H HC Orders Registered Owner’s Bolero Released On Superdari Despite 10g Heroin Seized From Him. Labhjit Singh Alias Lovejit Singh vs State Of Punjab. Punjab and Haryana High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the vehicle seized in an NDPS case should be released on superdari during the pendency of trial where the petitioner establishes registered ownership.

The court held

The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 1 March 2025.

It also directed

It 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.

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. 1-2

The 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. 1-2

The Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, rejected the application on 1 March 2025.

pp. 1-2

Before the High Court, the petitioner produced a certified registration certificate showing him as the vehicle’s registered owner.

pp. 1-2

02Issues

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. 2-3

ii.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. 2

03Law 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. 2

Relying 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. 2

It 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. 3

Provisions 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. 2-3

It 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. 2-3

The 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. 2-3

05Holding

The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 1 March 2025.

p. 3

It 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. 3
Punjab and Haryana High Court

Original Court PDF

Labhjit Singh Alias Lovejit SinghvsState Of Punjab

Punjab and Haryana High Court · October 30, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment