JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 18.02.2021 passed in Itkhori P.S. Case No.168/2020, N.D.P.S. Case No.13/2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, N.D.P.S., at Chatra in Misc. Criminal Application No.13/2021 whereby the prayer for release of the vehicle [Baleno Car] of the petitioner has been rejected and the case is pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, N.D.P.S, Chatra. 2. The F.I.R was instituted alleging therein that on the written petition filed by Gobind Kumar, PSI, Itkhori, P.S. addressed to the Office Incharge of Itkhori P.S. inter alia stating that on 3.10.2020 at about 14.05 hours S.P.Chatra got secret information that in one Baleno Maruti Car Opium smugglers from the More side are going to Pitiz Itkhori side after some time. In this regard, SP instructed to constitute a Raiding Team with Magistrate for necessary action. This information was recorded in Police diary as Sanha No.15 dated 3.10.2020 and for verification of the matter and for needful action, the Officer Incharge of Itkhori Police Station was requested to inform Sri Baijnath Kamati Circle Officer to reach Itkhori Police Station. The Officer Incharge Itkhori Police Station constituted a Raiding Team whose details is mentioned in the FIR and the Team proceeded from the Police Station at 14.15 hours and reached Pitiz Banga Chowk at about 14.30 hours and started to check the vehicles. At about 15.00 hours from Chatra side one Mettalic Colour Maruti Company’s (Baleno Car bearing registration No.JH02 AX 8913) came in high speed which was intercepted with great difficulty. Then the vehicle was searched in presence of two independent witnesses whose names is mentioned in the FIR. In the car two persons were sitting in the front seat and person who was sitting in Driver’s seat on enquiry disclosed his name as Kumar Vikash Ranjan @ Vicky son of Rajesh Prasad Gupta detail description is mentioned in the FIR and the other persons who was sitting in the car disclosed his name as Dhiraj Kumar Sao. While searching the vehicle from the Dash Board where the Asstt. Driver was sitting in one white colour transparent plastic wet opium like material was found which 700 grams weighed. Then they were demanded documents for keeping opium but neither they produced any document nor gave any satisfactory reply for keeping the material. While searching the vehicle from the Dash Board where the Asstt. Driver was sitting in one white colour transparent plastic wet opium like material was found which 700 grams weighed. Then they were demanded documents for keeping opium but neither they produced any document nor gave any satisfactory reply for keeping the material. Then in presence of Magistrate and two independent witnesses, seizure list was prepared and the opium was seized and sealed at the spot. The independent witnesses put their signatures willingly on the seizure list and copy of the same was handed over to the apprehended persons and their signatures obtained. In this way selling and purchasing of banned opium and transporting the same and apprehended red handed is a cognizable offence. Opium is injurious to human beings health and both the persons were arrested. That on the basis of the written petition filed by the informant, the FIR is instituted. 3. Mr. Dubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the alleged 700 grams of Opium has been alleged to be seized which is less than commercial quantity and two persons have been arrested and they have been granted bail. He submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle and the documents with regard to the said vehicle are up-to-date. He submits that the petitioner is the victim of the circumstance and the said vehicle was also insured and the said vehicle was being driven by the petitioner. He submits that no purpose will be served in keeping the said vehicle in open and the vehicle in question will be destroyed as such. 4. Per contra, Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that the vehicle in question has been rightly seized as 700 grams of Opium has been recovered and the petitioner being the owner of the said vehicle was arrested. He further submits that confiscation of the vehicle in question is subject to section 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 5. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner it appears that the vehicle in question is lying in open. This aspect of release of the vehicle has considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283. 5. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner it appears that the vehicle in question is lying in open. This aspect of release of the vehicle has considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283. Paragraph no.17 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow : “In our view, whatever be 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 orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.” 6. On perusal of sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act, it transpires that, the intention of the Legislature not to confine its drive to curb the spreading of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances to take actions against the carriers but to strike at the big fish involved in spreading and sustaining the malady by taking actions against persons providing facilities for transportation and stocking of contraband substances as also confiscating such transport and facilities involved in smuggling of the same. 7. Section 63 of the said Act makes it abundantly clear that decision regarding confiscation had not be taken during the trial and not after it and the right of the State to confiscate the conveyance and articles or things seized under this Act is irrespective of the result of the trial. 8. In view of the above facts, the impugned order dated 18.02.2021 passed in Itkhori P.S. Case No.168/2020, N.D.P.S. Case No.13/2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, N.D.P.S., at Chatra in Misc. Criminal Application No.13/2021 whereby the prayer for release of the said vehicle [Baleno Car] of the petitioner has been rejected, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, N.D.P.S, Chatra is quashed. The vehicle, in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner on his undertaking on the following terms and conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the court below. (ii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of a commercial vehicle of District-Chatra (Jharkhand). The vehicle, in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner on his undertaking on the following terms and conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the court below. (ii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of a commercial vehicle of District-Chatra (Jharkhand). (iii) That the petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicle on hire purchase agreement or mortgage or in any manner. (iv) He shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicle in any manner, and (v) He shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Trial Court. 9. The trial court is at liberty to impose any other terms and conditions which the trial court deems fit and proper. 10. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition [Cr.M.P.No.782 of 2021] stands allowed and disposed of. 11. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.