Remedy Does Not Lie In Keeping Vehicles Parked At Police Stations, But In Resorting To Digital Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Court was hearing a plea seeking the release of a Maruti Swift car seized in connection with an FIR registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 — Sections 110, 115(2), 3(5), 351(3), 117(2), and 118(2).

The Court emphasized the importance of technology allowing extensive digital documentation through photographs and video recordings, suggesting that such evidence is sufficient to preserve the identity of the vehicle for trial, making prolonged seizure unnecessary.

A Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara observed, “If the vehicle is kept in a police parking lot, its value would depreciate, it would rust and decay, and the windowpanes would likely break, the color would fade away, significantly altering its appearance, making it impossible for any person to identify the vehicle. If the vehicle is left in a seized condition, it will lose roadworthiness, turn into junk, and eventually exceed the time limit for which it was designed and approved to run on the roads.”

It was further added, “the case property being stolen, released, or destroyed under misidentification, or lost can also not be ruled out. Further, at the time the vehicle was produced, so many carbon emissions occurred in the process, during extraction, and through rollout from the production line, and immense damage to the planet has already been done.”

Advocate Vivek Monga appeared for the Petitioner and AAG Rakesh Jangra appeared for the Respondent.

The Court questioned, “Had the incident taken place in a battery-operated rickshaw, usually driven by people with meagre means, or in a taxi, which is hypothecated and monthly installments of loan and interest have to be paid against advanced postdated cheques or standing debit instructions, should the livelihood of such a person be put at stake simply because the incident/accident had taken place in their vehicle?”

The Court thus added, “If the vehicles are kept in police custody till the completion of the investigation, not only would the livelihood of all such people be adversely affected and put on the line, but they would also be pushed into deep pits of debt, and the banks that had financed the vehicles would also be affected. Further, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the open spaces in and outside the police stations have abundant seized vehicles, and even if those are produced at the time of trial, because of the perennial exposure to the Sun, dust, rain, and storms, it would be challenging for a person to assuredly gauge about its involvement or non-involvement.”

The Court further said, “the remedy does not lie in keeping vehicles parked at police stations, but in resorting to digital evidence.”

The Court ordered, “This Court earnestly believes that the District Judiciary, while adjudicating the applications for the release of vehicles which are not required to be confiscated under any Statute or Judicial Orders, shall not reject the applications for release except by mentioning the reasons and distinguishing the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred to above and the observations made in this order. Needless to say, while allowing the application for release, it shall be open to refer to this order.”

The Court set aside the lower court’s order and directed the authorities to release the car to its owner after verifying the registration certificate and establishing proper ownership. If the vehicle was under hypothecation, the Court ordered that the concerned financial institution be informed. It further mandated that the Investigating Officer, Station House Officer, and supervisory police officials ensure immediate compliance with the release order.

Cause Title: Amit Tanwar v. State of Haryana, [2025:PHHC:155773]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Vivek Monga and Arvind Monga

Respondent: Advocate Rakesh Jangra

Click here to read/download Order