CRM-M-33580- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Balram Pandey State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate and Ms. Shweta Bawa, MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, whereby the prayer for release of vehicle bearing registratio petitioner, being its 05.07.2021 registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Farukhnagar, Gurugram, and for issuance of directions for release of the aforesaid vehicle in favour of the 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and was never involved in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the vehicle had been borrowed by the accused persons without his knowledge or consent and was used for illegal purposes without his awareness. It is further argued that during trial the petitioner had moved an application for release of the vehicle on supurdari, which was declined, and thereafter he approached vehicle subject to furnishing surety; however, due to financial constraints he could -2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Versus Haryana HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate and Ms. Shweta Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, whereby the prayer for release of vehicle bearing registration No.UP 85BT 4096 in favour of the petitioner, being its registered owner, has been dismissed in FIR No. 191 dated 05.07.2021 registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Farukhnagar, Gurugram, and for issuance of directions for release of the aforesaid vehicle in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and was never involved in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the vehicle had been borrowed by the accused persons hout his knowledge or consent and was used for illegal purposes without his awareness. It is further argued that during trial the petitioner had moved an application for release of the vehicle on supurdari, which was declined, and thereafter he approached this Court and obtained an order permitting release of the vehicle subject to furnishing surety; however, due to financial constraints he could -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33580-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 17.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Advocate for the petitioner. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, whereby the prayer for UP 85BT 4096 in favour of the registered owner, has been dismissed in FIR No. 191 dated 05.07.2021 registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Farukhnagar, Gurugram, and for issuance of directions for release of Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and was never involved in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the vehicle had been borrowed by the accused persons hout his knowledge or consent and was used for illegal purposes without his awareness. It is further argued that during trial the petitioner had moved an application for release of the vehicle on supurdari, which was declined, and this Court and obtained an order permitting release of the vehicle subject to furnishing surety; however, due to financial constraints he could Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, whereby the prayer for UP 85BT 4096 in favour of the registered owner, has been dismissed in FIR No. 191 dated 05.07.2021 registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Farukhnagar, Gurugram, and for issuance of directions for release of Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and was never involved in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the vehicle had been borrowed by the accused persons hout his knowledge or consent and was used for illegal purposes without his awareness. It is further argued that during trial the petitioner had moved an application for release of the vehicle on supurdari, which was declined, and this Court and obtained an order permitting release of the vehicle subject to furnishing surety; however, due to financial constraints he could TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.18 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33580- not comply with the condition. It is submitted that both accused persons, namely Yadram and Bhupinder, have alre concluded, yet the learned Court below dismissed the petitioner’s subsequent application for release of the vehicle vide order dated 28.05.2024 on incorrect and erroneous grounds. It is further contended that the lea that the petitioner is the father of accused Yadram, whereas in fact he is not related to him, which is evident from their respective Aadhaar cards and dates of birth. It is thus argued that the impugned order is perverse, factu be set aside. 3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and submitted that both accused been convicted and the case property has been dealt with in Section 60 of the NDPS Act and has there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 28.05.2024. However, learned State counsel fairly admits that in the impugned order it has been incorrectly recorded that Balram Pandey is the father of convict Yadram, whereas he is not his father. 4. I have considered the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The record reveals that the FIR in question was r subsequently tried and convicted by the competent Court. During the course of proceedings, the present petitioner, claiming himself to be the registered owner of the vehicle allegedly used in the com seeking release of the vehicle. One such application was dismissed by the learned Court below vide impugned order dated 28.05.2024. It is, however, an admitted -2024 (O&M) not comply with the condition. It is submitted that both accused persons, namely Yadram and Bhupinder, have already been convicted and the trial stands concluded, yet the learned Court below dismissed the petitioner’s subsequent application for release of the vehicle vide order dated 28.05.2024 on incorrect and erroneous grounds. It is further contended that the lea that the petitioner is the father of accused Yadram, whereas in fact he is not related to him, which is evident from their respective Aadhaar cards and dates of birth. It is thus argued that the impugned order is perverse, factu Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and submitted that both accused persons, namely Yadram and Bhupe been convicted and the case property has been dealt with in Section 60 of the NDPS Act and has been ordered to be confiscated, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 28.05.2024. However, learned State counsel fairly admits that in the impugned order it has been incorrectly corded that Balram Pandey is the father of convict Yadram, whereas he is not his I have considered the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The record reveals that the FIR in question was registered against accused Yadram and Bhupe subsequently tried and convicted by the competent Court. During the course of proceedings, the present petitioner, claiming himself to be the registered owner of the vehicle allegedly used in the commission of the offence, moved applications seeking release of the vehicle. One such application was dismissed by the learned Court below vide impugned order dated 28.05.2024. It is, however, an admitted -2- not comply with the condition. It is submitted that both accused persons, namely ady been convicted and the trial stands concluded, yet the learned Court below dismissed the petitioner’s subsequent application for release of the vehicle vide order dated 28.05.2024 on incorrect and erroneous grounds. It is further contended that the learned Court wrongly recorded that the petitioner is the father of accused Yadram, whereas in fact he is not related to him, which is evident from their respective Aadhaar cards and dates of birth. It is thus argued that the impugned order is perverse, factually incorrect and liable to Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and persons, namely Yadram and Bhupender, have already been convicted and the case property has been dealt with in accordance with been ordered to be confiscated, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 28.05.2024. However, learned State counsel fairly admits that in the impugned order it has been incorrectly corded that Balram Pandey is the father of convict Yadram, whereas he is not his I have considered the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The record reveals that the FIR in ed Yadram and Bhupender, who were subsequently tried and convicted by the competent Court. During the course of proceedings, the present petitioner, claiming himself to be the registered owner of mission of the offence, moved applications seeking release of the vehicle. One such application was dismissed by the learned Court below vide impugned order dated 28.05.2024. It is, however, an admitted not comply with the condition. It is submitted that both accused persons, namely ady been convicted and the trial stands concluded, yet the learned Court below dismissed the petitioner’s subsequent application for release of the vehicle vide order dated 28.05.2024 on incorrect and rned Court wrongly recorded that the petitioner is the father of accused Yadram, whereas in fact he is not related to him, which is evident from their respective Aadhaar cards and dates of birth. It ally incorrect and liable to Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and nder, have already accordance with therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 28.05.2024. However, learned State counsel fairly admits that in the impugned order it has been incorrectly corded that Balram Pandey is the father of convict Yadram, whereas he is not his I have considered the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The record reveals that the FIR in nder, who were subsequently tried and convicted by the competent Court. During the course of proceedings, the present petitioner, claiming himself to be the registered owner of mission of the offence, moved applications seeking release of the vehicle. One such application was dismissed by the learned Court below vide impugned order dated 28.05.2024. It is, however, an admitted TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.18 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33580- position before this Court that in the said impugned has crept in, inasmuch as it has been recorded that Balram Pandey is the father of convict Yadram and is seeking release of the vehicle in that capacity, whereas both sides fairly concede that the petitioner is not the father documents placed on record, including Aadhaar cards and dates of birth, prima facie support the assertion that the petitioner is not related to the convict in the manner recorded in the impugned order. Such an incorrect foundational f direct bearing on adjudication of the application and, therefore, cannot be ignored. 5. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 cannot be sustained as the same proceeds on an admittedly incorrect factual premise. 6. Accordingly, dated 28.05.2024 Sessions Judge, Gurugram to consider and decide the petitioner’s release of the vehicle afresh in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned and without being influenced by any observations made in the earlier order. 7. All the pending application(s), if any, is/ar February 17, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2024 (O&M) position before this Court that in the said impugned has crept in, inasmuch as it has been recorded that Balram Pandey is the father of convict Yadram and is seeking release of the vehicle in that capacity, whereas both sides fairly concede that the petitioner is not the father documents placed on record, including Aadhaar cards and dates of birth, prima facie support the assertion that the petitioner is not related to the convict in the manner recorded in the impugned order. Such an incorrect foundational f direct bearing on adjudication of the application and, therefore, cannot be ignored. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 cannot be sustained as the same proceeds on an dly incorrect factual premise. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the dated 28.05.2024 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram to consider and decide the petitioner’s release of the vehicle afresh in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned and without being influenced by any observations made in the earlier order. All the pending application(s), if any, is/ar , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- position before this Court that in the said impugned order a material factual error has crept in, inasmuch as it has been recorded that Balram Pandey is the father of convict Yadram and is seeking release of the vehicle in that capacity, whereas both sides fairly concede that the petitioner is not the father of said convict. The documents placed on record, including Aadhaar cards and dates of birth, prima facie support the assertion that the petitioner is not related to the convict in the manner recorded in the impugned order. Such an incorrect foundational fact has a direct bearing on adjudication of the application and, therefore, cannot be ignored. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 cannot be sustained as the same proceeds on an the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram to consider and decide the petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle afresh in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned and without being influenced by any All the pending application(s), if any, is/are also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No order a material factual error has crept in, inasmuch as it has been recorded that Balram Pandey is the father of convict Yadram and is seeking release of the vehicle in that capacity, whereas both of said convict. The documents placed on record, including Aadhaar cards and dates of birth, prima facie support the assertion that the petitioner is not related to the convict in the act has a direct bearing on adjudication of the application and, therefore, cannot be ignored. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 cannot be sustained as the same proceeds on an impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Additional application for release of the vehicle afresh in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned and without being influenced by any TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.18 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document