Crl. Revn. No.612 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revn. No.612 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 21.04.2011 Baldev Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Ankur Bali Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, A.A.G, Punjab RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Amritsar whereby the application for release of the vehicle (Tata Safari) bearing No. PB-10-CR-8833 on Superdari in case F.I.R No. 152 of 2010 under Section 18 read with Section 61, was declined Mr. Ankur Bali, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is the registered owner of the above said vehicle and is fully entitled to get the said vehicle released on superdari. He has further argued that the custody of the vehicle will not serve any purpose nor its release will effect the trial of the case in any manner. He has stated that the vehicle has been kept in stranded in the police Station. 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 Superdari 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 superdari. However, it has not been disputed Crl. Revn. No.612 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 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 12.10.2010 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 ` 3 lac 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 21, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE