JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 3.7.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Chittorgarh whereby the application under Section 451 filed by the petitioner for being granted the interim custody of the Tempo No. RJ-09-TA-1193 was rejected. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an F.I.R. No. 24/2012 was registered at P.S. Kapasan for the offence under Sections 8/15 and 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act. As per the F.I.R., the S.H.O. P.S. Kapasan conducted Nakabandi at Kapasan T. Junction and on stopping the tempo No. RJ-09-TA-1193, found the petitioner sitting therein. On search a plastic bag was found lying in between the driver seat and middle seat containing 3 kgs. of contraband styled to be poppy husk. The tempo was seized and case was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the N.D.P.S. Act and against the co-accused Ramesh Chandra for the offence under Section 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and investigation commenced. 3. The petitioner claiming that his tempo had not been used knowingly for transportation of contraband, filed an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Judge for releasing the vehicle on Supurdaginama. The learned Special Judge, rejected the application vide order dated 3.7.2013. Now, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant miscellaneous petition challenging the orders passed by the learned Special Judge praying that the Tempo Reg. No. RJ-09 TA-1193 being registered in the petitioner's name be directed to be released to him in interim custody during the pendency of the trial. 4. Mr. Abhishek Charan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the contraband recovered was much below the commercial quantity and there is no material on record of the case to show that the petitioner's vehicle was consciously used to transport the contraband. He contends that as the contraband is alleged to be packed in a gunny bag, the petitioner could not have had any knowledge about lire contents thereof. He submits that tempo is a public transport vehicle and if any passenger brings some contraband in a packed condition and keeps it in the vehicle, the driver/owner thereof would be unaware of the contents of the packet. He submits that tempo is a public transport vehicle and if any passenger brings some contraband in a packed condition and keeps it in the vehicle, the driver/owner thereof would be unaware of the contents of the packet. He further submits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle in question lying in an unattended condition at the Police Station. He thus prays that the miscellaneous petition should be accepted and the petitioner deserves to be granted the interim custody of the vehicle on 'Supardnginama'. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the order impugned and the charge-sheet. 7. It is evident that the petitioner is a registered owner of the tempo and the recovered contraband is below commercial quantity. Till date, the trial of the case has not been concluded. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle in question lying in an unattended condition at the Police Station as the same would be rendered waste. 8. Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition succeeds. The order dated 3.7.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Chittorgarh is hereby quashed and the learned trial Court is directed to release the tempo bearing registration No. RJ-09-TA-1193 to the petitioner on Supardaginama upon his furnishing a solvent security in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs) with one surety in the like amount.Petition allowed. *******