A Panchkula additional sessions court has dismissed an application filed by former Narwana MLA Ramniwas Surjakhera seeking the release of his seized Toyota Fortuner. The vehicle was impounded in connection with a March 2023 FIR involving cheating, forgery, and corruption related to the embezzlement of approximately ₹72.13 crore from the Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP).
The case centers on a massive fraud where unauthorised payments were funneled from a “ghost” HSVP bank account between 2015 and 2019. Investigations revealed that the account, opened at a Manimajra bank under a fake designation, was used to repeatedly release public funds to specific parties via untraceable emails. The prosecution alleges that Surjakhera purchased luxury vehicles, including a Fortuner, Jaguar, and Volkswagen, using these misappropriated “proceeds of crime.”
Surjakhera’s counsel argued for the car’s release on superdari (interim custody), stating it was partially financed through a ₹20 lakh government loan for MLAs and was essential for his family’s transportation to coaching centres and medical checkups. The defence claimed the seizure was illegal and lacked proper notice, emphasising that the vehicle was hypothecated to the Haryana government.
However, the public prosecutor countered that while a partial loan was taken, the majority of the vehicle’s cost was covered by ill-gotten gains. The court was informed that Surjakhera allegedly spent crores on luxury assets between 2021 and 2023. It was further noted that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has already filed a prosecution complaint under the PMLA, which is currently pending.
{{/usCountry}}However, the public prosecutor countered that while a partial loan was taken, the majority of the vehicle’s cost was covered by ill-gotten gains. The court was informed that Surjakhera allegedly spent crores on luxury assets between 2021 and 2023. It was further noted that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has already filed a prosecution complaint under the PMLA, which is currently pending.
{{/usCountry}}Refusing the plea, the court held that the vehicle is vital “case property” in a sub judice matter. The judge also clarified that since the vehicle is hypothecated and installments are still due, the title has not fully passed to the applicant. Given the ongoing investigation into other co-accused, the court ruled that the vehicle cannot be released at this stage.