Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Release of Seized Motorbike; Holds Vehicle Cannot Be Retained Without Statutory Basis

Case Name: Sakattar Singh vs. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 14 November 2025
Citation: CRR-2486-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the order of the Special Court refusing release of the vehicle and directed that the seized motorbike be returned to the applicant upon compliance with prescribed conditions. The Court held that since the statute invoked in the FIR does not provide for confiscation of the vehicle, and the motorcycle is required only for identification and evidentiary purposes, continuing to retain it in police custody would serve no lawful purpose. The Court further held that judicial discretion regarding release of vehicles must be exercised independently and not based merely on recommendations or objections of the police.

Summary: The petitioner sought release of a Royal Enfield Bullet-350 motorcycle seized in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 103, 190, 191(5), and 61(2) BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner asserted that he was the lawful registered owner, was not named in the FIR, and that the vehicle had no connection with the alleged offences. The Special Court rejected the request primarily on the ground that the police did not recommend release. In revision, the petitioner argued that continued retention would result in deterioration of the vehicle and financial loss and that there existed no statutory power permitting its confiscation.

The High Court analysed Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, along with established Supreme Court precedents, and reiterated that seized vehicles should not be permitted to rust in police stations when digital photographic and videographic documentation can safeguard evidentiary value. The Court observed that the purpose of seizure is preservation, not destruction, and that the criminal justice system cannot operate in a manner that renders property worthless by the time trial concludes. The Court also emphasised that judicial officers are not subordinate to police officials and may not rely solely on non-speaking reports from the police when deciding release applications.

Decision: The revision petition was allowed. The Court directed release of the vehicle to the registered owner after verification of ownership and subject to specified procedural safeguards, including forensic examination if required, photographic or videographic recording of identifying features, and execution of appropriate undertakings and security. The Court clarified that release of the vehicle shall not prejudice the prosecution and the digital record created will be treated as admissible evidence. The Court further noted that such release orders should become the norm where confiscation is not legally mandated, and judicial authorities must provide reasons if refusing release. All pending applications were disposed of.