JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 22.06.2012 of learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 485/2012, whereby the application filed by petitioner for handing over of Car Tata Indigo Manza No.HR-36-N-7404 to him. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out that the vehicle in question has not been claimed by any other person and petitioner is its registered owner and contended that if it is allowed to lie in the police station, it will get damaged. Relying on the judgments of this court in Bal Mikand v. State, 1994 Cri.LR. (Raj) 4 and Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 507 and that of the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 290 , learned counsel submits that the vehicle should be given to the petitioner on furnishing 'Supurdginama'. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and contended that the vehicle in question was used in commission of offence and this is likely to be confiscated under Section 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, and hence the learned Sessions Judge has rightly refused the delivery of the vehicle to the petitioner. 4. I have considered the above arguments. It is not disputed that the vehicle in question has not been claimed by any other person. It is further not disputed that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle. It cannot be denied that the vehicle in question if allowed to remain in the police station, it is likely to get damaged and ruined. On the ground that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the Act, the interim custody of the vehicle cannot be denied to the petitioner, who is its registered owner. It is after the trial of the case that confiscation order can be passed. Only for the reason that vehicle is liable to be confiscated after trial, 'Supurdgi' of the vehicle cannot be denied. It is only an interim custody, which is given to the party on certain conditions. The order passed by learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable. 5. Consequently, the petition is allowed. It is directed that Car Tata Indigo Manza No.HR-36-N-7404 shall be delivered to petitioner on 'Supurdginama' on his producing original registration certificate and on satisfying following conditions:- (1) He furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. The order passed by learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable. 5. Consequently, the petition is allowed. It is directed that Car Tata Indigo Manza No.HR-36-N-7404 shall be delivered to petitioner on 'Supurdginama' on his producing original registration certificate and on satisfying following conditions:- (1) He furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 2,50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to produce the vehicle in question in the Court as and when required to do so. (2) He shall get the vehicle in question photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the investigating officer, to be kept on the file of the case. (3) The personal bonds of the petitioner and bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner and his 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. (4) The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question and not to lease it to any one and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable. Petition allowed. *******