' RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.--- Through this writ petition, order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Islamabad, dated 18-8-2008 has been challenged, through which, Superdari of the vehicle has been refused.
2. Facts arising from this writ petition are that petitioner purchased Suzuki Mehran bearing Registration No,LY-5364 Model 1999 from one Javed Iqbal son of Ghulam Muhammad for sale consideration of Rs,2,15,000 and earnest money of Rs,50,000 was paid to the seller in presence of the marginal witnesses. The said vehicle was taken by Muhammad Miskeen, his driver to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. During the course of its examination, it was found that the said vehicle is tampered vide Lab. Reference No,955 dated 7-4-2008 and resultantly it was taken into possession by the police under section 550, Cr.P.C. A case under sections 420, 468, 471 and 411, P.P.C. Was registered vide F.I.R. No,198, dated 7-4-2008 against Muhammad Miskeen son of Sahib Gul.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders passed by both the Courts below are against law and facts. Courts have not looked into the fact that petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the vehicle and the same has been taken into possession from him. Vehicle is neither a disputed property nor is required in any case and the petitioner is the sole owner. There is no other claimant of this vehicle. Vehicle has been detained by the police for the last several months and the same is going to damage day by day and its material value is being depreciated and there is apprehension of its total damage.
4. On the other hand, learned Federal Counsel, who appeared along with Investigating Officer, at the very outset, stated that during investigation, the petitioner was found bona fide purchaser and there is no denial that the vehicle was also taken into possession from him. Vehicle is not required in any criminal case and the same can be given to the petitioner on Superdari, subject to furnishing of adequate bail bonds.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Federal Counsel. Record is perused.
6. There is no denial that the vehicle in question was taken into custody under section 550, Cr.P.C.
From the possession of the petitioner and during investigation, it was found that no offence is stated to have been committed qua the property stolen and said vehicle neither used in the commission of any offence, nor found under circumstances, creating suspicion of commission of any offence. Petitioner seems to be a bona fide purchaser.
7. The property is lying in the police station for the last few months and its possession is deteriorating its condition day by day and there is every likelihood of its complete damage, if the same is allowed to be retained with the police station. The main object of the Superdari is to save the property from further damage.
8. It is settled principle of law that in a case, there is no rival claimant of the Superdari of vehicle in question then, vehicle should ordinarily be given on Superdari from whom, it was taken into possession by the police authorities. Reliance can be placed on cases Malik Muhammad Rafique 1986 SCMR 1539 and Humayun Akhtar v. The State 1999 M LD 1676.
9. For what has been discussed above, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. Order, dated 18-8- 2008 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad is set aside. S.H.O. Concerned is directed to hand over the custody of the vehicle to the petitioner, subject to furnishing of surety bonds of Rs,1,00,000 to his personal surety to the satisfaction of concerned S.H.O. Petitioner shall be bound to produce the vehicle, as and when required by the learned trial Court.