ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred this criminal Revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 17.2.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anupgarh District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Misc. Case No.26/2020 may be set aside, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under section 457 of Cr.PC for releasing of vehicle Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No.RJ-31-CA-7183 has been rejected. The said vehicle was seized in connection with FIR No.750/2019 registered at P.S. Anupgarh District Sri Ganganagar for the offence under Sections 8/22, 25, 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle i.e. Swift Dezire Car having registration No.RJ-31-CA-7183. He further submits that the vehicle in question was given to Abhishek Dube for plying on contract basis. An agreement for the purpose was also entered into between the petitioner and Abhishek Dube. The said vehicle while being used by Abhishek Dube was intercepted by the police on 10.12.2019 and 75000 Tramadol Trio-SR tablets were recovered from the vehicle. Abhishek Dube and Ashok Kumar were arrested. The vehicle was seized by the investigating agency. When the fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner being registered owner of the vehicle, an application under section 457 Cr.PC for release of the vehicle on Supurdginama was preferred but the same was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 17.02.2020. 4. It is further contended that although the contraband was recovered from the vehicle in question but however, the petitioner had no knowledge about the vehicle being used by Abhishek Dube for carrying the contraband drug. This condition of the vehicle will deteriorate while lying in the police station unused. He undertakes that as and when the vehicle will be required by the learned trial court, he shall produce the same as directed and the said vehicle will not be transferred, sold or handed over to any other person without the leave of the trial court. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicle in question and the same is case property. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicle in question and the same is case property. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, to contend that the Hon’ble Supreme court has held that the vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as the same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to refute the above position. 7. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the present revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to release the vehicle i.e. Swift Dezire Car having registration No. RJ-31-CA-7183 on supardaginama in favour of the petitioner on usual conditions, which the trial court deems fit, provided he furnishes a bank guarantee of Rs.50,000/- with the trial court. 8. Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle.