Harmeet Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another

Th e instant revision petition has b een filed against the order dated 01.02.20 2 3, passed by the Additiona l Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby the a p plication of the petitioner for the release of his vehicle, Maruti Swift Dzire VDI BS IV, bearing Regi s tration No.HR-01-AK-6693 involved in ca s e bearing FIR No.397 dated 1 5.10.2022, registered under Section 21 of t h e Narcotic Drugs and Psychotr o pic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Parao, Ambala Cantt., has been d i smissed. 2. Le a rned counsel appearing on beh a lf of the petitioner contends that the petitio n er is the registered owner of the said vehicle. Tej Partap (brother-in-law of the petitioner) took the car on the pretext of some personal work. However, later, a contraband o f 310 grams of heroin was recovered fro m the vehicle, whereupon the above-mentioned FIR was registered. The vehicle was impounded and t a ken into possession by the police and the s ame stands parked in the prem i ses of the police station. On conclusion of t h e investigation, the chargeshee t has been filed only against Tej Partap, i.e. b rother-in-law of the petitioner. He further contends that the SUMIT SINGH GUSAINpetitioner move d an application for release of t h e vehicle; however, the same 2025.12.15 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶11

2

¶12

CRR-637-2024 (O&M)

¶13

251

¶14

was declined by the Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the investigation in the case is complete and that no purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle parked in the police station. The fact that the petitioner has not been nominated as an accused, hence, prima facie, the case weighs in favour of the petitioner herein.

¶16

Learned State Counsel, however, contends that the vehicle in question was involved in transporting a commercial quantity of heroin weighing 310 grams; hence, as per Sections 60 and 63 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, such a vehicle is liable to be confiscated and the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the said ground.

¶17

Responding to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment dated 30.09.2022 passed by this Court in CRM-M-28647-2022 titled as ‘Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Haryana’.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition.

¶19

Taking into consideration that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner would be corroborated vide judgment dated 30.09.2022 passed in CRM-M-28647-2022 titled as ‘Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Haryana’ and taking into consideration that the objection under Section 60 and 63 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, would be available in case the respondent-police establish that the vehicle in question was being used with the knowledge or connivance of the

¶20

owner or his agent, no such case has been projected by the respondents. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.15 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3

CRR-637-2024 (O&M)

251

Hence, the applicability of the said provisions is yet to be assessed by the Trial Court. No purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle parked in the police station premises and turning it unfit for any use.

¶25

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, is set aside. 9. Respondents are directed to release the vehicle after conducting detailed videography in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in CRM-M-50791-2025 titled as ‘ Amit Tanwar vs State of Haryana ’. The relevant part of the order is extracted hereunder:

¶26

“28. The release of the vehicle mentioned above on superdari shall be subject to the petitioner taking the following steps, within 60 days, and subject to the conditions mentioned in this order:

¶27

A. The forensic science examination and proper search of the vehicle shall be conducted, if required, by the Investigator/SHO, and if not already done.

¶28

B. A Mechanical Report shall be prepared by any expert, through the Investigating Agency, if required, by the Investigator/SHO.

¶29

C. By following the procedures of Section 63 BSA, 2023 [Corresponding to 65-B of Evidence Act, 1872], photos of the vehicle shall be taken from all directions, photo(s) of the chassis number, Engine number, Registration plates, if any, and photo(s) of the claimant/registered owner with the vehicles ought to be released, with one printout for the Court, two for the Investigator, one for the claimant, and one each for all accused be obtained. The petitioner/registered owner shall bear the cost of the photographs. The digital photographs shall be uploaded to the Investigating Agency's official web page(s). OR/AND

¶30

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.15 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

4

CRR-637-2024 (O&M)

251

By following the procedures of Section 63 BSA, 2023 [Corresponding to 65B of Evidence Act, 1872], the SHO shall direct making a high-quality/high-density video recording of the vehicle from all directions, also from opening the bonnet and cabin, including chassis number and the Engine number, and same to be copied in at least two digital devices, e.g., pen-drives, and the brand-new and unopened pen-drives/any other device shall be provided by the petitioner to the SHO/IO, and one copy, duly sealed in a parcel, shall before the Court, and the video shall be uploaded to the Investigating Agency's official web page(s).

¶35

D. The Petitioner(s) shall file Affidavit(s) declaring that the Applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle or its purchaser, if the name does not reflect on the registration certificate, and shall annex self-attested copies of all documents of purchase, or authorized agent, or is power of attorney holder of any of the above, and produce the original documents for comparison, and that neither the Applicant nor the registered owner of the vehicle or its purchaser or authorized agent, or power of attorney holder, as the case may be, shall claim any prejudice. E. The Registration Certificate of the vehicle/purchaser shall be returned to the Applicant by keeping an authenticated copy for the records.

¶36

F. Subject to clearing hypothecation, if any, the seizure shall not be construed as any binding, obstruction, or hindrance in the ownership rights of the registered owner of the vehicle, or its subsequent purchaser, who shall be entitled to sell, hypothecate, if not prohibited by any other order issued by any Court or a Quasi-Judicial Authority. Given that all the relevant evidence, if any, has to be collected before releasing the vehicle, following which its owner, registered or otherwise, shall be entitled to make

¶37

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.15 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

5

CRR-637-2024 (O&M)

251

alterations in the vehicle, including a change of colour, exterior, or interior, etc.

¶42

29. The photographs, in digital as well as physical, and videorecordings taken above shall be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under Section 497(4) of the BNSS, 2023.

¶43

30. This order is subject to compliance within sixty days, failing which it shall eclipse and shall stand being recalled automatically on the 61st day, under Sections 403 & 528 BNSS,2023 [Corresponding to Sections 362 & 482 Cr.P.C,1973] without any further reference to this Court .”

¶44

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶45

09.12.2025 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶46

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.15 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harmeet Singh v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harmeet Singh v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kurukshetra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs Balbir Singh

Yashpal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Raj Singh Vs Mahant Gurbachan Singh and Another

Basanti Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Virender Sherawat Vs Pushpa Nagpal

Nand Kishore & Anr. Vs State Bank of India Th Principal Officer & Chief Manager