JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. In Sessions Case No. 48/9?., pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi, the matter relates for the custody of a white coloured Maruti van bearing registration No. DL -! C-R 1117. The accused petitioner is facing trial in the caseunder section 8/18 oof the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. The accusation against the r-etit' that opium wayzed from his possession weighing 10 kg. and 800 gms. in the aforesaid van when it was checked by the concerned officers. The petitioner had moved an applicationunder section 451 Cr.P.C. for the custody of the said car but the learned Add I. Sessions Judge declined the request vide order dated March 13, 1992. 2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the said vehicle is lying in a open place and by the time, the case is decided, it will be completely damaged, as such, the custody of the car be given to him. Learned Counsel further submits that he is the registered owner of the vehicle and there is no other claimant, as such, none has any dispute in giving the car in his custody. On the other hand, the learned PP gives out that the offence under which the car was found involved is of a serious nature and it can also be forfeited by the Trial Judge if it is found that the said car was used for than sporting contraband article. 3. It is true that the car in question can be forfeited by the Trial Court if it is found that it was used for transporting contraband article. It is also true that a large quantity of opium is alleged to have been seized in the said car. But, it is also the concern of the Court to see that the car is kept in a proper custody and is not damaged for want of proper care. In such cases, it has been the constant view of this Court to pass proper order for the safe custody of the vehicle so that it may not spoil on being kept unattended in a open place at the Police Station. A reference in this connection be made to a decision of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 544/87 (Balvinder Singh v. State) decided on 14.8.87 . A reference in this connection be made to a decision of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 544/87 (Balvinder Singh v. State) decided on 14.8.87 . There is a reference of other cases also in this very case. The argument of the learned PP was answered by the Court as under : "No doubt after the amendment in the Act, truck or a vehicle in which the opium or other some commodity is transported is liable to be confiscated but before passing of such an order, it is necessary to make arrangements for the safe custody of the vehicle. If it is allowed to remain in the open place at Police Station then no one will take care of it and the condition shall deteriorate even if it is ordered to be confiscated. What is required during the pendency of the trial is to make arrangement that the truck remains in the present condition and is produced before the Court as and when it is called for." 4. Thus, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, I allow this petition filed by the petitioner and it is directed that the above mentioned vehicle be released on 'supurdaginama' to the petitioner on the following conditions: (i) he shall furnish a personal security in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs and two sureties in the sum of Rs. one lac each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the condition that the vehicle shall be produced in Court as and when required to do so; (ii) he shall not transfer or otherwise dispose of the vehicle to anyone else and also shall not make any change in its body or colour till further orders; (iii) he shall submit a photostat copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle in the Trial Court; (iv) he shall also file an undertaking in the Trial Court that the vehicle shall not be used for commission of any offence; (v) before giving the custody of the vehicle three coloured photographs of cabinet size from different angles showing the registration number shall be kept in the file of the case. The expenses of the photographs shall be borne by the petitioner. On fulfilling the aforesaid conditions the vehicle may be given in the custody of the petitioner or his authorised person provided a written authority is submitted in the Trial Court. Petition allowed. The expenses of the photographs shall be borne by the petitioner. On fulfilling the aforesaid conditions the vehicle may be given in the custody of the petitioner or his authorised person provided a written authority is submitted in the Trial Court. Petition allowed. *******