Crl. Revn. No. 2121 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revn. No. 2121 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 01.12.2010 Piyush Walia ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present revision petition has been filed on behalf of Piyush Walia for setting aside order dated 28.7.2010 passed by Judge Special Court, Amritsar vide which the application filed by the petitioner for release of vehicle on sapurdari has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is registered owner of the car and an application was moved for release of vehicle on sapurdari as the same is not required at this stage but the same has been dismissed only on the ground that the quantity recovered from the accused falls under commercial quantity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order passed in Crl. Revn. No. 2423 of 2010 titled as “Vikas Mangal Vs. State of Punjab” as well as the judgment of this Court in case Harpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 719, wherein reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat, 2003 Crl. Revn. No. 2121 of 2010 (2) (1) RCR (Crl.) 380 (SC) and decision of this Court in Roop Chand and company Vs. State of Punjab, 1996 (1) RCR (Criminal) 401, to support his contentions. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the release of vehicle on sapurdari on the ground that alleged quantity of contraband recovered from the vehicle in dispute was commercial. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order. Admittedly, the trial in the FIR in question is still pending before the trial Court. The question as to whether the Car in question is to be confiscated to the State or not, will be decided at the time of the decision of the trial. Presently, the vehicle in dispute is standing in the Police Station and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the same there as the damage would be caused to the vehicle, if the same is not used. In view of what has been stated above as well as in view of the settled law, it would be in the interest of justice, if the said vehicle is released on sapurdari. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.7.2010 passed by Special Judge, Amritsar is set aside and the vehicle in question is ordered to be released on sapurdari to the petitioner on executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs with one surety in the like amount and the undertaking to the effect that as and when the trial Court requires the abovesaid vehicle, the petitioner will produce it in the same condition at his own cost before the Court by which it is required. He shall also give an undertaking to the effect that he will not allow the aforesaid vehicle to be used for such an offence in future. December 01, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Crl. Revn. No. 2121 of 2010 (3) Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No