JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. This revision petition has been field by the petitioner against the order dated 01.11.2008 whereby the learned Special Judge, N.D.PS. Act Cases, Ratangarh, District Churu has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.PC for releasing Esteem Car. No. MH- 01 R-7235 (of which the petitioner is the RC holder) on 'supurdignama'. 3. As per the prosecution case, SHO, P.S. Sujangarh, District Churu on 10.09:2008 after receiving secret information conducted 'nakabandi' and signalled Esteem Car No. MH-01 R-7235 to stop and after chasing it got it stopped and then recovered 2 Kg and 800 Grams of Opium lying inside the vehicle. Thereafter, the vehicle was seized and a case vide FIR No. 138/2008 was registered for the offence under Sections 8/18 and 25 of N.D.PS. Act. It would be pertinent to mention here that the registered owner of the vehicle was not made accused in this case. 4. After completion of investigation, the police filed challan. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section 451 Cr.PC. before the learned trial court for releasing the said car on 'supurdiginama' stating that he is the registered owner. Challan has already been filed in the matter. The vehicle is lying in open at the Police Station and due to absence of proper care etc., the condition of vehicle Is deteriorating day by day. The police authority has completed the Investigation, as such, the vehicle is not required by the Investigating Officer and the trial of the case will take a long time, therefore, the vehicle be released to him as he Is the RC holder, however, the learned trial court had rejected the said application vide order impugned. Hence, this revision petition. The notice of revision petition was issued. Record of the case was called and the arguments were heard. 5. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised earlier and finally made a request to allow the revision petition and prayed that the vehicle-in-question be released on 'supurdignama' in favour of petitioner. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition stating that under Section 60 of N.D.P.S. Act a vehicle can be forfeited and further it was stated that the alleged recovery is more than the 'commercial quantity', thus, it was argued that the vehicle should not be released till the trial of case is concluded. 7. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition stating that under Section 60 of N.D.P.S. Act a vehicle can be forfeited and further it was stated that the alleged recovery is more than the 'commercial quantity', thus, it was argued that the vehicle should not be released till the trial of case is concluded. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. The learned trial court has rejected the application on non sustainable grounds and has not appreciated the facts in right perspective. Further, the learned Judge was of the view that from the vehicle in question contraband Opium has been recovered, therefore, the learned Judge declined to release the vehicle on 'supurdginama' but he has failed to consider the fact that the petitioner himself has not been involved in the case.Without going into the merits of the case, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner himself is not involved in the transportation of contraband and challan has been filed and the said vehicle is lying in open at the police station without proper care and it being the admitted case of prosecution that the petitioner is the RC holder of the vehicle and no other person has claimed the vehicle, I consider it a fit case to release the vehicle on 'supurdignama'. 8. Accordingly, In the totality of facts and circumstances I deem it just and proper to direct that the aforesaid Esteem Car No. MH-01 R-7235 be released on 'supurdignama' to the petitioner (who is said to be RC holder) on his producing the registration certificate and on satisfying the following conditions : 1. The petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the condition that Esteem car in question shall be produced in the court as and when required to do so. 2. The petitioner shall also get the Esteem car in question photographed showing the registration number as well as engine number and chassis number. Such photographs shall be taken in the presence of the Investigating Officer to be kept on the file of the case. The photographs shall be submitted in duplicate 3. 2. The petitioner shall also get the Esteem car in question photographed showing the registration number as well as engine number and chassis number. Such photographs shall be taken in the presence of the Investigating Officer to be kept on the file of the case. The photographs shall be submitted in duplicate 3. The personal bond of the petitioner and bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner and their sureties and the bond of sureties shall further carry the photographs of persons identifying them before the court with full residential particulars of the sureties and the persons Identifying them and additional set of these photographs shall also be furnished to the court and shall be a part of the record. 4. The petitioner shall not transfer the ownership of the Esteem car In question and shall not lease it to any one and shall not make or allow any. changes in it to be made so as to make it unidentifiable." 9. In the result, the revision petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 01.11.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, N.D.RS. Act Cases, Ratangarh, District Churu is quashed and set aside. Office is directed to send the original record of the case to the learned trial court for compliance.Petition Allowed. *******