Punjab & Haryana High Court Slashes Excessive Sapurdari Bonds in CBI Corruption Case; Holds Superdari Conditions Must Be Proportionate, Reasoned and Non-Punitive
Case Name: Ashok Kumar Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh
Date of Judgment: 16 December 2025
Citation: CRM-M-60277-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a petition seeking modification of sapurdari conditions and held that while courts are empowered to impose conditions for interim release of seized property, such conditions must satisfy the test of proportionality and reasonableness. The Court ruled that fixing exorbitant bond amounts far exceeding the depreciated value and evidentiary relevance of seized property amounts to an arbitrary and punitive exercise of discretion. Mechanical imposition of such conditions without recording reasons was held to be legally unsustainable.
Summary: The petitioner, an accused in a CBI case registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sought reduction of sapurdari bonds imposed for release of a seized vehicle and mobile phone. The Special Judge had ordered release of the Hyundai Grand i10 (2016 model) and an iPhone 12 on sapurdari, subject to furnishing bonds of ₹10 lakh and ₹1 lakh respectively, along with sureties of like amount.
The High Court examined the legal framework governing interim custody of seized property under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC and their corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court reiterated that the very object of sapurdari is to prevent unnecessary retention and deterioration of property, and not to impose indirect punishment through onerous financial conditions.
Drawing from authoritative Supreme Court precedents, including Basava Kom Dyamogouda Patil and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the Court emphasized that the primary purpose of sapurdari bonds is to ensure safe custody and production of property when required. Where the seized property is not the subject matter of the offence but only ancillary in nature, the bond amount cannot be equated with its full market value, much less be fixed arbitrarily without recording justification.
The Court found that the Special Judge had imposed the bond amounts in a mechanical manner without assessing the depreciated value of the vehicle, the negligible residual value of the mobile phone, or the limited evidentiary necessity of retaining physical custody. Such an approach, the Court held, defeats the very purpose of interim release and violates principles of fairness, proportionality, and Article 300A of the Constitution.
Decision: The petition was allowed. The impugned order was modified to the extent that the sapurdari bond was reduced to ₹1,00,000 for the vehicle and ₹10,000 for the mobile phone, each with one surety of the like amount. All other conditions imposed by the Special Judge were left undisturbed.