Continued Impoundment Serves No Purpose—Superdari Is a Remedy, Not an Acquittal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in NDPS Case

“No court has found the petitioner guilty yet. The vehicle’s detention for over 3½ years serves no prosecutorial purpose while causing irreversible loss to its owner,” In a crucial decision balancing property rights and procedural fairness, the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the release of a seized Innova vehicle involved in a pending NDPS case. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed that prolonged custody of the vehicle without adjudication of guilt results in unnecessary hardship, especially when the petitioner remains merely an accused.

The judgment clarifies that interim release under superdari does not amount to acquittal or disposal of evidence, but is a pragmatic solution to prevent avoidable economic loss.

“Superdari Does Not Compromise the Trial—It Preserves Property from Decay During Long Pendency” — Court Rejects Police Objection on Release of Vehicle

The petitioner, Neeraj, was the registered owner of an Innova (HR-51-W-3749), which was seized by police on 25 March 2022 following the alleged recovery of 2.6 kg of opium from the vehicle. An FIR was registered under Sections 18 and 29 of the NDPS Act, and the vehicle was impounded.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala had dismissed Neeraj’s application for superdari on 24.11.2022, prompting the present criminal revision before the High Court.

The Court noted that the petitioner had not yet been convicted, and the trial was still pending. Stressing the principle that no prejudgment of guilt can be assumed, the Court reasoned:

“The Trial is still pending and no Court has found the petitioner guilty till date.”

Further, Justice Bedi acknowledged the practical reality of prolonged seizure:

“Almost 3½ years have elapsed… The Innova vehicle is currently parked in the police station. It is subjected to the vagaries of the weather and its disuse will lead to its value being diminished causing irreparable loss to the petitioner.”

Referring to a consistent line of judicial precedents, including Gurbinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2016), Sanjay v. State of Haryana (2019), and Union of India v. Gurpreet Singh (2025), the Court reiterated:

“No useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in police custody pending trial when the petitioner is the registered owner and no adjudication on guilt has occurred.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the criminal revision, directing:

“The Innova vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-51-W-3749 is ordered to be released on superdari to its registered owner on furnishing superdarinama/superdari bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/Special Judge, Ambala.”

However, the release was made conditional, with the following caveat:

“The petitioner shall not either sell the vehicle or alter its condition in any manner.”

This judgment underscores a fundamental principle of criminal law: property should not suffer merely because its owner is under trial. The High Court’s intervention ensures that procedural safeguards are not weaponized into punitive tools, particularly when they cause irreversible economic loss without aiding justice.

By distinguishing superdari from a declaration of innocence, the Court reinforces that interim relief is not an impediment to prosecution, but a safeguard against unnecessary hardship.

Date of Decision: 1 August 2025