Rajveer Singh v. State Of Punjab
! "
" # $
!"#"$%
% "$ & '(
"# &
'()(&' " #
& ' ( * $ #)" %
+
,
- "
-
' - ."
/ 0(1"
2$ #+
( )
3" '
"-
#'4 #+'
)#+
)superdari 4 5' 55 567,/
8 " 02
"
+
$ "#
( ' 0 9,
( :2 2.
% )+' ' )) '
"'
5)+' "- '4 $$ ) 4 %;#
, < & 8 4 4 )) )+ $$#+ $)
+(#
*
)) +
$) $)+ #
- $"5* ))
#
)4
- $#+ $)#+$
55
"#." )+' 670"$
24 "
' 5 )
5 ) 53
4 +
6"
)." 4 "$$ #
5 " 4
$ ,=#
5' #+'
)." +) 5 ) )+
( )+' )4 )#+ " 4 '3
7 "#
) 5'
, =#
0(1"
/2' ")+ " #+
*
$
'&,* ) * $ 5
#
)"
- %; )superdari ) 5
54 ) 5#+ )4 3
>4
4 5#+
)"
5$"
/0(1"
2
"
4 4 3
4 " 55 "
( / <
") inter alia
4 4 )." #"
+$"
5 5 5 #+ , =#
0(1"
/24 ' 5
)
)+5 >"
"#5
") "5#
) # superdari )+ 4 4 4 "
)) $"
$' 4 '4 4 4
)." 7
' $) ) " #+ "
Nirmal Singh Vs. State of Punjab2007(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 986, 4 ' "
))4 ) superdari
4 4 >"
"#5
."
)+ #+ 5 "
)"$(1"
/
*
$
) +" ,=#
"
4
)." 5' # "5 "#5
#+ 5# "
+
Per contra )
") $$ $
+ "#5
- $"54 5 ) ." ' " ' # superdari ? >
")
"
4 #)
'
$
"
(
#
)" 55 superdari.7 '-$ ) )
) 4)) "4
+" 8 ( 43" # >:#) "$ 5"
" Bishwajit Dey Vs. The State of Assam 2025(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 486
))+ )
); 55 "
( # superdari"
$+
)
3" 5 ' ))4 4 ) "34. This Court is also of the view that if the Vehicle in the present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This Court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the Vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce.
)
35. On the contrary, if the Vehicle in question is released, it would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able to earn his livelihood), to the bank/financier (who would be repaid the loan disbursed by it) and to the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be available for transportation of goods)."
6"
43" # >:#) "$ 5"
Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (2002)10 SCC 283'$
3" %
'$ ))4 @17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles."
( ))+' % "
Gurbinder Singh @ Shinder Vs. State of of Punjab 2016(4) R.C.R (Criminal) 492, $
3" 3+ ")'# ))4 "21. In the above facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that there is no provision under the NDPS Act debarring the release of the vehicle for interim custody. The provision under Section Cr.P.C. which is found not inconsistent with the provisions of the NDPS Act is applicable to the vehicle seized under the NDPS Act as well. No differential treatment to the vehicle seized under the NDPS Act is contemplated either under the provisions of the NDPS Act or under the ratio laid down by the Court of law. In our considered view, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra) will apply to the vehicles seized under the NDPS Act as well. Any contrary view taken by the Courts of law would be against the interest of the owner of the vehicles, the public at large and the State." 05$ 2 22.
In the above facts and circumstances, we hold that the vehicle used for transporting the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances can also be released on sapurdari invoking the provision under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The reference is answered accordingly." )
) # $) "
#+ "
Satnam Singh Vs. State of Punjab in the case
bearing No. CRR No. 241252019 decided on 16.02.2021. 74 "' ))4
5$"
/$ #+
(
3" '
"-
# #+ * )#
, < & 8 # superdari '"
superdarinama
"
6"
' )
) "
5$ "
#)
5 ) "
" "
) 4 5#
) A
)) )"
)* $ 5" )"
$"
$ " " )' )) '"
) 5)) "
02' +' )) )
$ '
(
B $ CA, B $
#) CA,