Punjab and Haryana HC Orders Release of Confiscated Truck on Financial Bonds Pending NDPS Appeal
The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed interim release of a truck confiscated under the NDPS Act, holding that no statutory bar prevents such relief and that prolonged parking destroys the vehicle's value.
A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur, has allowed an application filed by Gurjinder Singh — the registered owner of a TATA LPT3118 truck — seeking its interim release on financial bonds while his criminal appeal against conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 remains pending. The truck had been confiscated by the trial court after Gurjinder Singh was convicted under Sections 27-A, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The bench held that the NDPS Act contains no specific bar against interim release of a seized vehicle, that the vehicle's continued detention in a police godown serves no purpose, and that the registered owner was entitled to be heard before any confiscation order could be sustained. The order lays down a detailed procedure for release on financial bonds, including a valuation-linked surety and conditions governing subsequent sale or transfer.
The Conviction, the Confiscation, and the Appeal
On 13 September 2018, the Narcotics Control Bureau received secret information that two to three quintals of poppy husk were being transported from Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh, towards Bhavani via Samana, to be delivered to Gurjinder Singh. At around 9:30 PM, an NCB team intercepted a truck at Bhavanigar Chowk, Samana. The truck's three occupants — Amandeep Singh (driver), Sarabjeet Singh, and Sandeep Singh — were apprehended. A search yielded 252.600 kilograms of poppy husk. Further investigation implicated Gurjinder Singh as the truck's owner and the intended recipient, and he was arraigned as Accused No. 4 in FIR No. 38/2018 dated 14 September 2018, registered at P.S. NCB Chandigarh under Sections 15, 25, 27-A, and 29 of the NDPS Act.
By a judgment dated 17 March 2021, the Special Judge, Patiala (NDPS Case No. 32 of 2019) convicted all four accused. The three truck occupants were convicted under Section 15, while Gurjinder Singh was convicted under Sections 27-A, 25, and 29. In the sentencing order dated 19 March 2021, the trial court additionally directed confiscation of the truck — bearing registration No. PB-13BB-0379 — to the State of Punjab, noting that the vehicle had been used to transport the contraband and that its registered owner had been convicted under Section 25 of the NDPS Act.
Gurjinder Singh challenged the conviction and sentence before the High Court in CRA-D-206 of 2021. The appeal was admitted and remains pending for final hearing. A coordinate Division Bench suspended his sentence by order dated 10 September 2025. As of the custody certificate dated 9 May 2026, he has not been in custody in the present FIR since 29 October 2025.
The Application: Release of the Truck on Superdari
With the appeal pending and his sentence suspended, Gurjinder Singh filed CRM-14893-2026 seeking release of the truck on superdari (interim custody on bonds). His primary ground was that he had not been heard before the trial court passed the confiscation order.
The bench noted that the Supreme Court, in Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam [2025] 1 SCR 281; 2025-INSC-32, decided on 7 January 2025, had held that a confiscated vehicle can be ordered by the trial court only on conclusion of trial, and that even then, the court must give an opportunity of hearing to any person claiming a right to the vehicle before passing a confiscation order. The same judgment further held that there is no specific bar or restriction under the NDPS Act against returning a seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drugs in the interim, and that courts may invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for interim release.
The bench also referred to the Supreme Court's later decision in Denash v. The State of Tamil Nadu [2025] 10 SCR 950; 2025-INSC-1258, decided on 10 October 2025, which held that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 are subordinate legislation that cannot supersede the parent NDPS Act, and that confiscation, being a deprivation of property, must conform to the basic tenets of natural justice and be preceded by a prior hearing.
The Bench's Reasoning on Interim Release
The bench confined its inquiry to the impact of continued confiscation and retention of the vehicle during the pendency of the appeal — not to the merits of the conviction. It observed that the appeal against conviction remains pending, that the possibility of ultimate acquittal cannot be ruled out, and that the relief sought is essentially interim in nature. The question of final confiscation would remain subject to the outcome of the appeal.
On the statutory framework, the bench examined Section 60 of the NDPS Act (which defines the liability of conveyances to confiscation) and Section 63 (which prescribes the procedure for confiscation). It also referred to Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which contemplates preparation of an inventory of seized vehicles, including photographs certified by a Magistrate, and provides that such inventory and photographs shall be treated as primary evidence. The bench noted that under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 497 empowers a criminal court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property produced before it during investigation, inquiry, or trial, and to order disposal where property is subject to speedy or natural decay.
The bench drew on a line of Supreme Court and High Court decisions dealing with the release of seized vehicles. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283, the Supreme Court had held that it is of no use to keep seized vehicles at police stations for long periods and that Magistrates should pass appropriate orders immediately by taking bonds and security. In General Insurance Council & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [2010] 5 SCR 97, the Supreme Court observed that vehicles kept in the open at police stations are prone to fast natural decay, loss of road-worthiness, and cannibalisation of parts.
The bench made a pointed observation about the purpose of vehicle confiscation under the NDPS Act. It reasoned that confiscation is intended to inflict financial loss on vehicle owners to dissuade them from allowing their vehicles to be used for drug transportation — not to physically destroy the vehicle by leaving it to rot in a parking lot. Keeping a confiscated vehicle in a godown, the bench said, serves no purpose: the vehicle deteriorates into scrap, and every stakeholder — the owner, any financier, and the State — loses value. The bench also observed that the crime was committed by the driver or the person who placed drugs in the vehicle, not by the vehicle itself, and that there is no assurance that a vehicle resold by the Government after confiscation will not again be used for transportation.
The bench noted that the truck had been lying in a godown for several years, that the applicant was willing to give an undertaking to pay the current market value of the vehicle together with interest if the confiscation order is ultimately upheld, and that the respondents had not filed any written objections to the valuation report though they opposed release.
On 20 April 2026, the bench had directed that a certified valuer be permitted to inspect the truck at the concerned police station, with the SHO directed to facilitate the inspection without unnecessary delay. The applicant subsequently submitted an Estimated Market Value Valuation Report.
Conditions and Procedure for Release
The bench directed that the truck be released to its registered owner subject to a detailed procedure and set of conditions.
The applicant is required to file an application for release before the concerned court, annexing the valuation report, a declaration of the current market value, a copy of the Registration Certificate, his personal bond, and one bond from a solvent guarantor who has no outstanding loans and is not an accused in cheque bounce cases. Both the applicant and the guarantor must undertake to pay the State of Punjab an amount equal to the truck's current market value, together with interest at 6% per annum compounded annually, in the event the confiscation order is upheld.
The application must be accompanied by an affidavit declaring that the applicant is the registered owner (or purchaser, authorised agent, or power of attorney holder), with self-attested copies of all relevant purchase documents and originals produced for comparison. The Registration Certificate is to be returned to the applicant, with an authenticated copy retained on record.
On receipt of the court's order, the Investigator, SHO, or Supervisory Officer must proceed without unnecessary delay to release the vehicle and ensure it is removed from the parking slot. Subject to the continuation of the financial bonds and any hypothecation, there is to be no restriction on making alterations to the vehicle (including changes of colour, exterior, or interior), and — if not prohibited by any other court or quasi-judicial order — no restriction on selling, hypothecating, or transferring the vehicle or on subsequent purchasers.
The bench also directed that the concerned court, upon verifying the Registration Certificate and ascertaining that the applicant is the registered owner, shall consider ordering release. If the vehicle is found to be hypothecated, the relevant financial agency is to be informed.
The bench added a direction to the District Judiciary: applications for release of vehicles not required to be confiscated under any statute or judicial order should not be rejected in a mechanical manner.
The order carries a compliance deadline of ninety days. If not complied with within that period, it shall lapse automatically on the 91st day under Sections 403 and 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 362 and 482 of the CrPC, 1973), without any further reference to the High Court. Extension of time may be sought from the trial court, which is competent to grant it.
Outcome
CRM-14893-2026 was allowed by the Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur on 29 May 2026. The truck bearing registration No. PB-13BB-0379 is directed to be released in favour of its registered owner, Gurjinder Singh, on financial bonds as specified in the order. The question of final confiscation remains open and subject to the ultimate outcome of CRA-D-206 of 2021. The order is marked as speaking, reasoned, and reportable.