IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 156 LOVEPREET SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. Present : Mr Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab MANISHA BATRA 1. Prayer in this petition has been made by t aside the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by Revisional Court in case arising out of FIR No.184 dated 20.10.2021 registered under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, registered at Police Station whereby, while deciding the petiti the order dated 04.04.2022 passed by learned trial Magistrate and had ordered to release of the vehicle of the petitioner on furnishing cash security/bank guarantee. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disp that the aforementioned FIR has been registered against the petitioner and the co-accused on the allegations that on 20.10.2021, illicit liquor was recovered from a scorpio car bearing registration No.HR along with co-accused had brought the said liquor from some other State. The petitioner filed an application for release of aforementioned vehicle on superdari. He is undisputedly, registered owner of this vehicle. Vide order IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M Date of decision: LOVEPREET SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral) Prayer in this petition has been made by t the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by Revisional Court in case arising out of FIR No.184 dated 20.10.2021 registered under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, registered at Police Station whereby, while deciding the petition, learned Revisional Court had modified the order dated 04.04.2022 passed by learned trial Magistrate and had ordered to release of the vehicle of the petitioner on furnishing cash security/bank Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disp that the aforementioned FIR has been registered against the petitioner and the accused on the allegations that on 20.10.2021, illicit liquor was recovered from a scorpio car bearing registration No.HR accused had brought the said liquor from some other State. The petitioner filed an application for release of aforementioned vehicle on superdari. He is undisputedly, registered owner of this vehicle. Vide order IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M No.17703 of 2025 Date of decision: 01.04.2025 …. Petitioner …. Respondent MANISHA BATRA , Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. Prayer in this petition has been made by the petitioner for setting the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by Revisional Court in case arising out of FIR No.184 dated 20.10.2021 registered under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, registered at Police Station City Moga, District Moga, on, learned Revisional Court had modified the order dated 04.04.2022 passed by learned trial Magistrate and had ordered to release of the vehicle of the petitioner on furnishing cash security/bank Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR has been registered against the petitioner and the accused on the allegations that on 20.10.2021, illicit liquor was recovered from a scorpio car bearing registration No.HR-56-A-2424 and the petitioner accused had brought the said liquor from some other State. The petitioner filed an application for release of aforementioned vehicle on superdari. He is undisputedly, registered owner of this vehicle. Vide order he petitioner for setting the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by Revisional Court in case arising out of FIR No.184 dated 20.10.2021 registered under Section 61 of the Punjab City Moga, District Moga, on, learned Revisional Court had modified the order dated 04.04.2022 passed by learned trial Magistrate and had ordered to release of the vehicle of the petitioner on furnishing cash security/bank osal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR has been registered against the petitioner and the accused on the allegations that on 20.10.2021, illicit liquor was recovered er accused had brought the said liquor from some other State. The petitioner filed an application for release of aforementioned vehicle on superdari. He is undisputedly, registered owner of this vehicle. Vide order Jyoti 2025.04.03 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM- dated 04.04.2022, application by directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee in the shape of FDR or cash amount to the tune of of some more conditions. The petitioner filed said order thereby, making prayer for modifying the same and for reducing the amount of the bank guarantee/cash security and further making prayer for directing release of the vehicle subject to furnishing superdari bonds. The learned Revisional Court observed that as per Section 78(2) of the Punjab Excise Act, a conveyance could be ordered to pendency of trial only bank guarantee declining the prayer so made for furnishing superdarinama or surety bonds, it partly allowed the revision petition by reducing the security amount to from `8 lakhs. 3. Still aggrieved, this 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle in question is 13 years great extent. The petitioner is a poor person. He is not abl in the form of cash or bank guarantee. It is therefore, submitted that instead of furnishing cash security or bank guarantee, he be allowed to furnish superdari bonds and surety bonds to the extent of Court. 5. The submissions as made by the petitioner’s counsel have been heard at length. -M No.17703 of 2025 dated 04.04.2022, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga disposed of his application by directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee in the shape of FDR or cash amount to the tune of `8 lakhs and further subject to compliance of some more conditions. The petitioner filed said order thereby, making prayer for modifying the same and for reducing the amount of the bank guarantee/cash security and further making prayer for directing release of the vehicle subject to furnishing superdari bonds. The learned Revisional Court observed that as per Section 78(2) of the Punjab Excise Act, a conveyance could be ordered to pendency of trial only on submission of security ( bank guarantee) equivalent to the value of con declining the prayer so made for furnishing superdarinama or surety bonds, it partly allowed the revision petition by reducing the security amount to 8 lakhs. Still aggrieved, this petition has been filed by the petitioner. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle in question is 13 years’ old vehicle and its value has been already reduced to a great extent. The petitioner is a poor person. He is not abl in the form of cash or bank guarantee. It is therefore, submitted that instead of furnishing cash security or bank guarantee, he be allowed to furnish superdari bonds and surety bonds to the extent of `5lakhs as ordered by the Revisio The submissions as made by the petitioner’s counsel have been heard at length. M No.17703 of 2025 -2- ed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga disposed of his application by directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee in the shape of 8 lakhs and further subject to compliance of some more conditions. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the said order thereby, making prayer for modifying the same and for reducing the amount of the bank guarantee/cash security and further making prayer for directing release of the vehicle subject to furnishing superdarinama and surety bonds. The learned Revisional Court observed that as per Section 78(2) of the Punjab Excise Act, a conveyance could be ordered to be released during the on submission of security (in form of cash security or equivalent to the value of conveyance, thereof and by declining the prayer so made for furnishing superdarinama or surety bonds, it partly allowed the revision petition by reducing the security amount to `5 lakhs petition has been filed by the petitioner. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle in old vehicle and its value has been already reduced to a great extent. The petitioner is a poor person. He is not able to furnish security in the form of cash or bank guarantee. It is therefore, submitted that instead of furnishing cash security or bank guarantee, he be allowed to furnish superdari 5lakhs as ordered by the Revisional The submissions as made by the petitioner’s counsel have been ed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga disposed of his application by directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee in the shape of 8 lakhs and further subject to compliance revision petition against the said order thereby, making prayer for modifying the same and for reducing the amount of the bank guarantee/cash security and further making prayer for surety bonds. The learned Revisional Court observed that as per Section 78(2) of the during the f cash security or veyance, thereof and by declining the prayer so made for furnishing superdarinama or surety bonds, it 5 lakhs It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle in old vehicle and its value has been already reduced to a e to furnish security in the form of cash or bank guarantee. It is therefore, submitted that instead of furnishing cash security or bank guarantee, he be allowed to furnish superdari nal The submissions as made by the petitioner’s counsel have been Jyoti 2025.04.03 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM- 6. On going through the record, I am of the considered opinion tha the impugned order dated 01.02 view of the fact tha mandatory in nature and as released during the pendency of the trial form of cash security and The petitioner has not placed any material on record to show that the value of the vehicle in question is less than made for furnishing of superdarinama/personal bonds as well indemnity bonds. This prayer can certainly not be accepted in view of the mandate of Section 78(2) of the Punjab Excise Act. The learned Revisional Court had made a detailed discussion my opinion, commi plausible reason to allow the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 01.04.2025 Jyoti-IV -M No.17703 of 2025 On going through the record, I am of the considered opinion tha the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 does not warrant any interference view of the fact that the provisions of Section 78(2) in nature and as per the same, the vehicle can released during the pendency of the trial, only on submission of security in the form of cash security and bank guarantee equivalent to the value of vehicle. The petitioner has not placed any material on record to show that the value of the vehicle in question is less than `5 lakhs. Moreso, the only prayer has been made for furnishing of superdarinama/personal bonds as well indemnity bonds. This prayer can certainly not be accepted in view of the mandate of Section 78(2) of the Punjab Excise Act. The learned Revisional Court had made a detailed discussion while passing the impugned order my opinion, committed no error in passing the plausible reason to allow the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No M No.17703 of 2025 -3- On going through the record, I am of the considered opinion that .2023 does not warrant any interference in t the provisions of Section 78(2) of the Punjab Excise Act is per the same, the vehicle can be ordered to be only on submission of security in the e equivalent to the value of vehicle. The petitioner has not placed any material on record to show that the value of 5 lakhs. Moreso, the only prayer has been made for furnishing of superdarinama/personal bonds as well as surety or indemnity bonds. This prayer can certainly not be accepted in view of the mandate of Section 78(2) of the Punjab Excise Act. The learned Revisional while passing the impugned order and in tted no error in passing the same. Accordingly, finding no plausible reason to allow the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No. Yes/No t n is be ordered to be only on submission of security in the e equivalent to the value of vehicle. The petitioner has not placed any material on record to show that the value of 5 lakhs. Moreso, the only prayer has been as surety or indemnity bonds. This prayer can certainly not be accepted in view of the mandate of Section 78(2) of the Punjab Excise Act. The learned Revisional and in . Accordingly, finding no Jyoti 2025.04.03 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document