2024 (9) TMI 760 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Orders Release of Seized Vehicle with Rs. 1 Lakh Surety; Unwarranted Conditions Removed for Compliance.

The HC resolved the petition by directing the release of the seized vehicle on Superdari, imposing a surety of Rs. 1 lakh. The court deemed the condition ... Release of a seized vehicle on Superdari - concealent of illicit liquor of a large quantity in the vehicle - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is facing the prosecution under Section 52(2) of Delhi Excise Act, 2009. The issue before this Court is not to determine the merits of that prosecution but only to consider whether the vehicle in question can be released on Superdari to the petitioner, and if so, on what conditions, and whether the conditions which have been imposed by the Financial Commissioner by the Impugned Order, deserve any modification. The purpose of seeking surety while releasing the same on Superdari is only to ensure that the vehicle is produced before the learned Trial Court as and when directed. In SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [2002 (10) TMI 773 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court directed that where a vehicle is seized, it is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security “for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time.” It held that it is of no use to keep such vehicles seized at the police stations for a long period. In the facts of the present case, there is no opposition to the release of the vehicle in question on Superdari to the petitioner. The only issue is of the reasonable conditions that should be imposed on the petitioner for the same. In my opinion, the object of releasing the vehicle on Superdari can be achieved by directing the petitioner to give a surety of Rs.1 lac. As far as the undertaking that the bus shall not be used for similar offence for a period of one year, in my opinion, there is no warrant in law for the said condition to be imposed. The impugned order records that in case the vehicle is not found to be involved in any other case of a similar nature for one year from its release, the surety shall stand discharged. The said condition shall continue to operate. Petition dispsoed off. Issues:1. Challenge to the order directing the release of a seized vehicle on Superdari.2. Conditions imposed for the release of the vehicle.3. Interpretation of provisions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.4. Consideration of the prosecution under Section 52(2) of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009.5. Determination of reasonable conditions for the release of the vehicle.Detailed Analysis:The petitioner challenged an order directing the release of a seized vehicle on Superdari. The vehicle was seized by police officials near Singhu Border carrying illicit liquor. The Assistant Excise Commissioner initially ordered the release of the vehicle subject to a surety of 60% of the insured amount. Subsequent appeals upheld this condition, leading to the current challenge before the Financial Commissioner, who imposed a surety of Rs. 2 lakhs and an undertaking against future misuse. The petitioner argued against the undertaking due to potential misuse, citing financial constraints for providing cash security. The respondents contended that the large quantity of illicit liquor found in the vehicle established the petitioner's complicity, justifying the conditions. The court noted the ongoing prosecution under Section 52(2) of the Act but focused on the release of the vehicle and the imposed conditions.The court emphasized that the issue was not to determine the merits of the prosecution but to decide on releasing the vehicle and the appropriate conditions. Notably, no order for confiscating the vehicle had been issued, and the vehicle was no longer required for investigation. Referring to legal precedent, the court highlighted the need for surety to ensure the vehicle's production before the Trial Court and avoid prolonged seizure at police stations. In this case, the court found no opposition to releasing the vehicle on Superdari, suggesting a surety of Rs. 1 lac as sufficient. The court deemed the condition of not using the bus for a similar offense for a year unwarranted in law. The impugned order stated that if the vehicle remained clear of similar offenses for a year, the surety would be discharged.Ultimately, the court disposed of the petition with the directed surety and discharged the pending application. The judgment clarified the legal basis for releasing seized vehicles on Superdari, emphasizing the need for reasonable conditions to ensure compliance without unduly burdening the petitioner.