Crl. Revn. No.2652 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revn. No.2652 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 20.04.2011 Sukhdev Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. SPS Tinna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 07.12.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ferozepur whereby the application for release of the vehicle on Sapurdari, was declined Brief facts of the case are that on 26.07.2009, ASI along with Head Constable Harnek Singh No. 1067, Head Constable Partap Singh No. 668 and PHG Darshan Singh No. 6562 was on patrolling duty on private vehicle and were going from village Sitto Gunno towards village Bishanpura. The police party while checking reached near village Bishanpura and stopped the petitioner who was seen coming from the front side on the motorcycle. Petitioner was carrying the polythene bag, which was lying on the tank of the motorcycle. On checking, some intoxicant substance was found in the bag. On enquiry, the petitioner disclosed his name as Sukhdev Kumar son of Karni Ram caste Ghumiar Bagri resident of village Amarpura, Police Station Saddar Abohar, Tehsil Abohar. The police recovered 6 packets of poppy husk from the bag of the petitioner which were of half kg each. The sample was prepared of the same under the stamp of ASI and the stamp was handed over to Head Constable Harnek Singh 1067. The recovery memo was also prepared on which the witnesses signed. Sukhdev Crl. Revn. No.2652 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Kumar was not carrying the licence. So, the F.I.R was registered under Sections 15/61/85 of NDPS Act. After registration of the F.I.R, the petitioner was release on bail and thereafter he moved an application before the learned trial Court for returning the motorcycle alleged to be involved in the F.I.R in question. But the learned trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner for releasing of the vehicle. Mr. SPS Tinna, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the vehicle is standing idle and unattended in open air in Police Station, which is likely to be damaged as the trial will take some time to conclude. He has referred to the decision of this Court in Nirmal Singh vs. State of Punjab, RCR (Crl.) 2007 (1) 986 whereby the vehicle was release on Supardari under the provision of NDPS Act. Learned State counsel has argued that the vehicle is a case property. He further states that the vehicle in question has been used by the accused at the time of commission of offence, hence, it could not be released to him on suparadari. However, it has not been disputed that the vehicle stands registered in the name of the petitioner. Keeping in view the above mentioned facts, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.12.2009 is set aside and the vehicle in question is ordered to be released on supardari to the petitioner on his execution of personal bond of Rs.25,000/- in the like amount and further undertaking that as and when the trial Court would require the vehicle in question, the petitioner shall produce the same in the same condition before the trial Court. However, it is clarified that petitioner shall be fully responsible for the vehicle in question. April 20, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE