JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed against the order dated 7.7.2012 for release of the jeep in question. The learned trial court while deciding the application under section 457/451 of Cr.P.C. for release of the jeep in question that was seized for offence under section 8/18 and 8/29 of NDPS Act has imposed the condition that it shall be released in favour of the petitioner, who is its registered owner, on furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 6,50,000 together with supurdaginama of the same amount and on the other conditions enumerated therein. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of principal seat of this Court in Vikas Kumar @ Vicky v. State of Rajasthan, 2011 (2) RCC (Raj.) 671 and argued that this Court in the aforesaid case directed release off the vehicle in question, which too was seized for the offence under the NDPS Act, on furnishing supurdaginama. It is argued that the vehicle in question is a jeep and petitioner is its registered owner. The jeep was borrowed by the accused and petitioner was not even the accused in the trial. He undertakes to surrender the jeep as and when required by the police and not to transfer, alienate or otherwise lease it out or violate any other conditions as imposed. 3. Learned counsel also cited the order of this Court in Banshi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.1354/2010 decided on 06.08.2010 , wherein too the condition imposing the bank guarantee was ordered to be deleted and the vehicle, which was a tractor, was ordered to be surrendered to the petitioner on furnishing the supurdaginama and Jamanatnama. 4. Learned counsel argued that there is no specific provisions in the NDPS Act for release of the vehicle, although the vehicle seized in question for the offence under the said Act is liable to forfeiture/confiscation, but at the same time this shall have to await the conclusion of the trial. Section 51, which appears in Chapter-V of NDPS Act, captioned "Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply to warrants, arrests, searches and seizures", provides that the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, to all warrants issued and arrests, searches and seizures made under this Act. It is therefore that provisions of Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. shall as well apply to the seizure made even under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel argued that the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee is quite onerous condition and that petitioner has no means to submit such bank guarantee as it would amount to blocking the money of that value for the duration of trial, which may take long and which shall also entail the interest of such money as no bank is prepared to furnish bank guarantee without deposit of the matching amount. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the condition imposed by the learned trial court requiring the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee appears to be onerous because though petitioner is a registered owner, but he is not an accused in the criminal case and that even otherwise if vehicle is not released and it lies with the Police Station, it would be subjected to decay and decomposition. 6. In the result, this misc. petition is allowed by deleting the condition of furnishing bank guarantee and instead requiring the petitioner to submit supurdaginama of Rs. 6,50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 3,25,000 each with the other conditions as imposed by the trial court for the release of the vehicle in question to the petitioner. On doing so, the jeep in question shall be handed over to the petitioner.Petition allowed. *******