ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission and, in my views, this petition can be disposed off on admission stage itself. 2. Petitioner has approached this court for quashing the order dated 20.10.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Custom case no.20 of 2010-11 by which and whereunder he refused to release Bolero jeep bearing registration no. BR-IPA-1867 in favour of the petitioner. 3. The brief fact which lies to file this quashing petition is that on 24.2.2011 the above stated Bolero jeep was intercepted by the custom officials and 68 kg ganja valued Rs 1, 68,000/- was recovered from the above stated jeep. The occupier of the aforesaid jeep managed to flee from the place of the occurrence at the time of the above stated interception. The custom officials took follow up action and issued notice under section 108 of the Custom Act, 1962 to the petitioner for his interrogation. The petitioner appeared and stated before the custom officials that the above stated Bolero jeep was stolen away by the thief for which he had lodged Banjara P.S. case no. 416/2010 on 10.10.2010. The custom officials filed Complaint case no. 20/2011 on 4.8.2011 against unknown persons and in follow up action they came to conclusion that the petitioner was not involved in the commission of the above stated crime. Thereafter, petitioner filed release petition before the learned Sessions Judge for release of the said seized Bolero jeep but learned Sessions Judge rejected the said petition passing impugned order against which this petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur has committed an error in rejecting the release petition because section 60(3) of the Custom Act clearly says that if owner of the vehicle succeeds to prove this fact that his vehicle was used without his knowledge and connivance, the aforesaid vehicle should be released in favour of the claimant. He also relied upon a decision reported in (2002) 10 Supreme court cases page 283 (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & ors vs. State of Gujrat) in which the Apex court of this court has held at para 17 as follows: “In our view, whatever the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate order immediately by taking appropriate bond, security as well as security for return of the said vehicle if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing for applications for return of such vehicles.” 5. It is contented by learned counsel for the petitioner that the above stated dictum of Apex Court of this country is applicable in almost all the cases and it does not matter whether the case has been registered under the Indian Penal Code or under any Special Act. 6. Although learned counsel appearing for the Union of India has supported the impugned order of learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur but he fairly conceded to the above stated dictum of the Hon’ble Apex court. 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions as well as facts and circumstances, particularly, keeping in mind that the custom officials themselves did not find involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime, I am of the opinion that learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur has committed an error in passing the impugned order and accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.10.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Custom case no.20 of 2010-11 is, hereby, quashed and learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur is directed to release the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner after taking proper bound and after imposing relevant conditions as he thinks fit. 8. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed off on admission stage itself.