JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this revision petition, the petitioner HDFC Bank Ltd. Branch and Landing Office at Time Square Complex, 4rth Floor Central Spine Vidhya Nagar, Jaipur through Authorised Signatory Mr.Shekhar Tatwawadi S/o CK Nath Tatwawadi has challenged the order dated 02.06.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh by which the learned trial court refused to release the vehicle on "Supurdginama". 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner HDFC Bank Ltd. Branch and Landing Office at Time Square Complex, 4rth Floor Central Spine Vidhya Nagar, Jaipur through Authorised Signatory Mr.Shekhar Tatwawadi S/o CK Nath Tatwawadi working as finance company for providing loan, lease, bill discounting amongst other. Learned counsel further submits that a Misc. petition has been filed in the year 2007 stating therein that Chaina Ram R/o village hem nagar, Jodhpur had approached the petitioner Bank and sought it to avail finance under loan agreement on a vehicle bearing No.RJ-19 GB0200 and submitted that he is in a position to fulfil the commitments under the said agreement and the petitioner bank and said Chaina Ram entered into agreement No.2964452 for vehicle loan for a period of 45 months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Chaina Ram continued to enjoy the use of said vehicle and started defaulting in the payment of monthly installments, therefore, the said vehicle was seized in FIR NO.02/2007,VIII (10)/2/NCB/JZU/07 (Sessions Case No.13/2008) during the course of investigation. The application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the petitioner for interim custody of the said vehicle and the same was rejected by order dated 02.06.2008 the court below on the ground that vehicle was required for identification and Chaina Ram is not turning to the Court inspite of repeated summons, Sri Ganganagar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the similar matter i.e. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition no. 130/2001 decided on 04.09.2001 Raj Kumar v. Union of India reported in 2001 (2) RCC 1370 , and in Criminal Appeal No. 549/2008 decided on 25.03.2008 Bharath Metha v. State by Inspector of Police Chenna in the vehicle was released on "Supurdginama". 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and supported the judgment of the learned trial court. 5. I have considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the certain evidence available on record. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and supported the judgment of the learned trial court. 5. I have considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the certain evidence available on record. It is not in dispute that the applicant has the first charge over the vehicle and no-one else is claiming the same. Further registered owner Chaina Ram has waived his claim in favour of the applicant for interim custody of the said vehicle. The learned trial court declined to release the vehicle in question on "Supurdginama" on the basis that commercial quantity of contraband was found in the vehicle and there is a provision in the NDPS Ac t to confiscate such vehicles which is found to be used in carrying narcotic drugs and substances. 6. In my view, no useful purpose will serve in keeping the vehicle in police station or at any other place. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to accept the petition. 7. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 02.06.2008 passed by the NDPS Special Court Cases, Chittorgarh is set aside and the said vehicle in question is ordered to be released on "Supurdaginama" to the petitioner on the following conditions:- [a] the petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- [ Rs. Fifteen Lacs] along with two sureties of Rs. 7,50,000/- [Seven lac Fifty Thousand] each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court undertaking to produce the said Vehicle as and when required to do so. [b] the petitioner shall get the said vehicle photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of Investigating Officer, to be kept on the file of the case. [c] the personal bonds of the petitioner and the bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner and his sureties and the bond of the sureties shall further carry the photographs of perhaps identifying them before the Court which is with full residential particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them. [d] the petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the said vehicle and not to lease it to anyone and not to make allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable. [d] the petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the said vehicle and not to lease it to anyone and not to make allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable. [e] the petitioner will not allow the said vehicle to be used for any antisocial activities including for the purpose of carrying narcotics which may constitute any offence under the NDPS Act. 8. With the aforesaid directions the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 02.06.2008 stands set aside.Revision Petition Allowed. *******