KHURAM SHAHZAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by the appellant seeking the release of a seized Honda Motorcycle (No. LOX-2705) on superdari, which had been confiscated in connection with a narcotics case. The core legal question before the Court was whether the vehicle, owned by a third party who was not involved in the alleged narcotics transportation, should remain in police custody or be released to its owner pending the trial. The Court observed that the appellant was the registered owner of the motorcycle and had not facilitated the transportation of narcotics in any manner. Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellant had no knowledge of the accused's alleged illegal activities. Emphasizing that keeping the vehicle exposed to the elements would lead to its deterioration and loss of market value, the Court held that the appellant was entitled to its release. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, directing the release of the motorcycle subject to the appellant furnishing a bond of Rs. 60,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
- Is the owner of a vehicle entitled to its release on superdari if they were not involved in the narcotics offence?
- Does the potential deterioration of a seized vehicle justify its release on superdari pending trial?
ORDER
' The appellant seeks release of Honda Motorcycle No,LOX-2705 on Superdari.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for ANF.
3. The appellant is owner of motorcycle. He had not facilitated in any manner in transportation of the narcotic. The motorcycle was handed over to the accused at his request for a shortwhile and the appellant had no knowledge of the alleged activities of the accused. Keeping the motorcycle under open sky will deteriorate its condition and market value.
4. For what has been discussed above we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to the release of the motorcycle. We accordingly direct its release subject to furnishing of bond in the sum of Rs,60,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- UMAR QIAZ KHAN vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 2393