2026 PLP 719 (MLD)

Johar Ali, J.

The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C against the impugned order dated 04-04-2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit has dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition NO. 19/2025 and maintained the impugned order dated 19-02-2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Misc. No. 223/2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the local police have impounded the motorcycle of the petitioner bearing No. CG-125 on the pretext of alleged suspicion. The petitioner filed an application (Cr. Misc. No. 223/25) under Section 523, Cr.P.C before the learned Judicial Magistrate Gilgit for grant of superdari of above mentioned vehicle which was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Gilgit vide the impugned judgment/order dated 19-02-2025. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Cr. Rev. No. 19/2025 before the learned District and sessions Judge Gilgit which was also dismissed by the learned District and Sessions Judge Gilgit vide impugned judgment/order dated 04-04-2025 without any cogent reasons and legal justification. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied from the impugned orders of the learned lower courts, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. The learned counsel further argued that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and last possessor of the vehicle in question and the original documents of the above mentioned vehicle are also in possession of petitioner, hence, the impugned judgments/orders are not maintainable and liable to be set aside. He further contended that there is no rival claimant of the subject motorcycle and same has been taken in police custody under Section 523, Cr.P.C and there is severe apprehension of rust and dust to the motorcycle as the motorcycle is lying under open sky, hence, he prayed for handing over the vehicle in question on superdari. He further contended that if the vehicle is handed over to petitioner on superdari, then the petitioner is ready to produce the motorcycle in question before this Court as and when required by this Court. He further contended that the impugned judgments/orders passed by the learned lower Courts are vague, perverse and absurd and the learned lower Courts have passed the impugned judgments/orders in hasty manner, hence, the same are liable to be set aside. He further argued that the learned lower Courts have failed to appreciate the relevant laws and facts available on record of the case file while passing the impugned judgments/orders, hence the same are not maintainable in the eye of law, hence, the same are liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the impugned judgments/orders are against the basic principles of justice, equity and law, hence, the same are not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly prayed for setting aside the impugned judgments/orders dated 04-04-2025 and 19-02-2025 passed by the learned lower Courts and direct the respondents (State) to hand over the vehicle/Motorcycle No. CG-125, Registration No. LEX-11-4120, Engine No. 3499423, Chasis No. U184887, Model-2011, in superdari to the petitioner, to meet the ends of justice, law and equity. To strengthen his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following case laws:- 1. 2020 MLD 1854 [G.B. Chief Court Gilgit]

2. Cr. Misc. No. 112/2009 [G.B. Chief Court Gilgit] 3. 2009 PCr.LJ 945 [Peshawar]

3. Conversely, the learned Addl. Advocate General has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the vehicle/motorcycle in question was taken into custody by the police of PS KIU Gilgit during routine checking being suspected. He further submitted that the vehicle in question is a stolen one and FIR No. 552/2024 has been registered under Section 381-A, P.P.C at Police Station Phool Nagar, Tehsil Patoki, District Qasoor, regarding missing of the motorcycle in question as such the same cannot be given on superdari, therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed being meritless. He further contended that the documents relied by the petitioner do not show his ownership over the motorcycle in question and the said documents are required to be verified from the concerned quarters. The learned Addl. Advocate General has lastly prayed for dismissed of the instant petition to meet the ends of justice, law and equity.

4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Advocate General and gone through the available record of the case with their able assistance.

5. From perusal of record, it reveals that the Police Station KIU, Gilgit, during routine checking took into custody of the aforementioned motorcycle as suspicion and till then same is in custody of the Police Station KIU, Gilgit. The petitioner himself claims the bona fide purchaser and last possessor of the said motorcycle, filed on application under Section 523, Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate Gilgit for its release on superdari which was dismissed vide judgment/order dated 19.02.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 223/2025. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 19/2025 before the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit, which too was dismissed vide judgment/order dated 04.04.2025. Hence, the present petition under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner.

6. Admittedly, FIR No. 552/2024 has been registered under Section 381-A, P.P.C at Police Station Phool Nagar, District Kasur, regarding theft of the motorcycle in question. The said fact has not been controverted by the petitioner. The alleged occurrence is under investigation by the concerned Police Station. The question of ownership and entitlement to possession can be determined by the Court concerned where the FIR is registered after completion of the investigation. Furthermore, the documents produced by the petitioner do not show his ownership over the motorcycle in question nor it has been verified by the concerned registration authority to establish lawful ownership and until such verification is made, the claim of bona fide purchase cannot be safely accepted. Ordinarily, the Courts lean in favour of releasing property on superdari to the person who is prima facie the owner or last possessor of the same, subject to his furnishing a suitable bond and undertaking to produce the property as and when required. However, when the property is allegedly stolen and a criminal case regarding its theft is registered in another district, the Court must act with caution and ensure that the release does not frustrate the ongoing investigation or the rights of the true owner.

7. In view of the above discussion, I find no illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings of the learned lower Courts warranting interference by this Court under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The impugned judgments/orders dated 04.04.2025 and 19.02.2025 passed by the learned lower Courts are well-reasoned and based on correct appreciation of law and facts, hence, the instant petition along with Cr. Misc. No. 240/2025 is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the competent Court of jurisdiction for redressal of his grievances, if he so desires. File. JK/10/GB Petition dismissed.