Allowed

M/S Montek Biopharma v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Nov 2015CRM-M/35620/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the release of a Land Rover seized in a theft and NDPS case on furnishing sapurdari, referencing a prior judgment on similar grounds.

What did the court decide?

Release of the Land Rover vehicle on furmention of surety/sapurdari bonds and undertaking not to sell/transferred the vehicle till trial conclusion.

M/S Montek Biopharma Vs State of Punjab — Arbitration | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc.-M No.35620 of 2015 Date of Decision: November 18, 2015

M/s Montek Biopharma

....Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.

¶9

¶10

Present: Ms.Isha Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional AG, Punjab.

¶11

-.-

¶12

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶17

In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks a direction for the release of motor vehicle, namely, Land Rover (Free Lander) bearing registration No.PB02-AR-0001 on sapurdari in the case FIR No.56 dated 15.05.2013 registered under Sections 379, 411, 473, 120-B IPC and Sections 21, 22, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Banur, District Patiala.

¶18

Though the case of the petitioner is that no recovery was effected from the said vehicle and hence it is not a case property, learned State counsel submits that the subject-vehicle might be the case-property in some other case. Be that as it may, the short question that requires consideration is whether or not the vehicle in question be not released on sapurdari?

¶19

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.11.19 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

[2]

¶21

CRM-M No.35620 of 2014

¶22

Such an aspect has already been dealt with by this Court in Criminal Misc.-M No.20127 of 2014 (Maninder Singh Aulakh @ Bitu versus State of Punjab decided on 04.11.2015.

¶23

Since no useful purpose shall be served by retaining the subject-vehicle in police custody as its value and utility will surely deteriorate if not put to use and if it remains parked unattended and un-serviced, we allow this petition and direct the release of above-stated vehicle to the petitioner subject to furnishing surety/sapurdari bonds to the entire satisfaction of the Special Judge, Mohali. The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that the vehicle shall not be sold/transferred in any manner till the trial is concluded and shall be produced in Court as and when required.

¶24

Dasti.

¶25

November 18, 2015 [HARI PAL VERMA] mohinder JUDGE

¶26

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.11.19 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

M/S Montek Biopharma v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Montek Biopharma v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Singh Vs Distt. Dev. & Panchayat Officer Roopnagar & Ors.

Amarjit Singh and Ors. Vs New Mandi Township Punjab

Surinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Puneet Garg Vs State of Punjab

Sukhdev Sngh @ Sukha Vs State of Punjab

Narinder Kumar Goyal Vs State of Punjab