JUDGMENT : 1. - By this criminal revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.06.2006 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara in Criminal Misc. Case No. 59/2006, whereby the application moved under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been rejected. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 31.10.2005 SHO, Bigod seized a jeep bearing No. RJ-06-G-4594, which was containing poppy husk. At that time, neither anybody was found near the jeep, nor it was claimed by anyone. Subsequently, charge-sheet was filed against Mithulal under Section 8/15, 8/25 and against Keshav under Section 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. Petitioner Govind Singh moved an application before the learned trial Court through his Power of Attorney holder Omprakash Somani for the release of vehicle on furnishing a Supardginama. The trial Court after hearing both sides, found that it was not in dispute that the vehicle in question bearing No. RJ-06-G- 4594 was in the name of registered owner Shri Govind Singh. It also found that the vehicle was financed by Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Bhilwara and instalments were due against Govind Singh. The trial Court further found that the alleged vehicle was sold to one Shri Omprakash Somani, who gave it on hire to one of the accused Mitthu Lal on 1.10.2005 on the monthly hire charges of Rs. 12,000/-. Thereafter, this vehicle was found containing poppy husk and was seized by the police. The trial Court rejected the application mentioning that if the vehicle in question is given on Supardginama then what is the guarantee that it will not be used in such type of offences again though the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the vehicle be given on Supardgi after obtaining a bank guarantee. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the vehicle was purchased after taking loan which is now in police custody will deteriorate lying in the police custody and no purpose would be served. It has also been submitted that if the vehicle is given on Supardginama then the petitioner would be able to earn his livelihood and would, be able to deposit the monthly instalment. It has also been submitted that if the vehicle is given on Supardginama then the petitioner would be able to earn his livelihood and would, be able to deposit the monthly instalment. The contention of the learned counsel further is that petitioner had no knowledge about the fact that it was used for transporting contraband poppy husk, therefore, the petitioner being registered owner, the vehicle is required to be released in the interest of justice on Supardginama to him. It is also submitted that the vehicle is lying open to sky and is exposed to heat which will result in damage and diminishing its value and in the event of its ultimate confiscation, it would cause a loss to the State as the vehicle would become useless by the time the trial is over. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a case reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 638 : 2003 Cr.L.R. (SC) 103, Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and a decision rendered by this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1029/2005 (Gajendra Singh v. State, decided on 06.12.2005. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. 5. I have considered the submissions made before me and carefully examined the authorities cited before me. 6. It has not been disputed that the registered owner of the vehicle submitted an application to release the vehicle on Supardginama and the trial Court rejected the application stating that there is no guarantee that the vehicle shall not be used subsequently in transporting contraband material. The reasoning given by the learned trial Court, in my humble opinion, cannot be said to be proper for refusing to release the vehicle on Supardginama. What is required is that proper conditions are to be imposed because no useful purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle in police custody open to sky which may cause damage to the extent that it may be of no use to anybody and also in the event of trial Court taking a decision to confiscate the vehicle, it is going to cause loss to State because it is not going to fetch good price. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (supra), has observed that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicles at police stations for a long period and it is for the Magistrate concerned to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as securing the return of the vehicles, if required at any point of time. 7. In the case of Gajendra Singh, in the similar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court after taking into consideration the decision rendered in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desais case, passed an order to release a jeep, in which contraband material was recovered on furnishing Supardginama. 8. In view of above legal position and also taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, it would be just and proper to release the jeep in question in favour of the petitioner, who is the registered owner of the jeep in question, on Supardginama incorporating the conditions by which the jeep in question can be maintained in good condition. 9. Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court dated 14.06.2006 is set aside and the trial Court is directed to release jeep No. RJ-6-G-4594 in favour of the petitioner on interim custody on furnishing a Supardginama provided the petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 2.5 lacs each to the satisfaction of the trial Court to produce the jeep in question in Court as and when called upon to do so and also incorporating the condition therein that he will maintain the jeep in good condition and shall not alter or transfer it during the pendency of the case and shall not also allow the vehicle to be used for transporting any contraband punishable under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act.Revision allowed. *******