In a packed courtroom at the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday, Justice Anoop Chitkara delivered a sharply worded judgment that immediately drew murmurs among lawyers present. The case, though revolving around a fairly routine request for release of a seized vehicle, turned into a pointed reminder to the lower judiciary about their obligation to pursue substantial justice, not get lost in technicalities.
The matter concerned a white Maruti Swift registration HR-19P-7167 seized in connection with an October 2024 assault case in Gurugram. The petitioner, Amit Tanwar, had knocked on every possible door before reaching the High Court.
Background
The vehicle was taken into custody during the investigation of FIR No. 622 of 2024, registered under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The complainant had alleged that the assailants arrived in a white Swift without a number plate, and police later linked the petitioner’s car to the crime.
When Tanwar moved the Judicial Magistrate First Class in November 2024 seeking release of the car on superdari essentially, interim custody the application was rejected on the ground that the vehicle was “case property” and some accused persons had not yet been arrested.
The Sessions Court didn’t offer much relief either. In April 2025, it dismissed the revision petition, bizarrely relying on a clerical error where the word “Auto” appeared instead of “Car.” Justice Chitkara didn’t hide his displeasure, remarking that such a mistake was easily clarifiable, and a simple statement from counsel could have sorted it.
When Tanwar filed a second revision this time correcting the error he was told the petition was not maintainable. That’s when he finally approached the High Court.
Court’s Observations
Justice Chitkara's order ran deeper than a mere direction on one vehicle. It read at times like a tutorial for courts and police officers handling seized automobiles.
“The learned Judge did not do substantial justice,” the bench observed, noting that the first revision had not been dismissed on merits but on a technicality making a second revision perfectly maintainable.
The court also emphasized that the offences alleged under the BNS don’t allow confiscation of the vehicle. So, keeping the car indefinitely offered no legal benefit.
The judge spent a significant portion explaining why vehicles should not be allowed to rot in police station yards a reality anyone who has passed a police station in India can instantly visualise. Justice Chitkara offered a blunt reality check:
“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.”
At one moment, he even asked, almost rhetorically, whether airplanes or metro coaches would be kept seized for years simply because someone committed a crime inside them. The courtroom chuckled, but the point landed forcefully.
Instead, the court stressed that digital evidence photographs, videography, chassis number recordings can serve as permanent proof, and there is no reason to detain vehicles for years.
Quoting earlier Supreme Court rulings, Justice Chitkara reiterated that seized property should not be kept longer than necessary, reminding lower courts and investigators that justice isn’t served by letting assets decay into worthless scrap.
Decision
In a sweeping order, the High Court set aside all three earlier orders the 2024 dismissal by the Magistrate and the two 2025 dismissals by the Sessions Court.
The judge directed that after verifying the Registration Certificate and confirming Tanwar’s ownership, the trial court must consider releasing the vehicle. He also laid out a detailed procedure involving:
- forensic examination (if not already done),
- preparation of mechanical reports,
- mandatory photos and video recordings under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
- affidavits establishing ownership, and
- return of the Registration Certificate.
The release is conditioned on completing all requirements within 60 days, failing which the order will automatically lapse.
Before concluding, Justice Chitkara issued a broader directive, almost like a gentle but firm warning:
“District Judiciary… shall not reject applications for release except by mentioning reasons and distinguishing the Supreme Court pronouncements.”
With that, the petition was allowed.
And the matter ended exactly where the court intended at the point of legal justice, not procedural clutter.
Case Title: Amit Tanwar vs. State of Haryana
Case Number: CRM-M-50791-2025
Reserved On: 01 October 2025
Pronounced On: 12 November 2025
Counsel
- For Petitioner:
- Mr. Vivek Monga, Advocate
- Mr. Arvind Monga, Advocate
- For State:
- Mr. Rakesh Jangra, AAG, Haryana