JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.03.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Chatra in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.436 of 2020 arising out of Chatra P.S. Case No.107 of 2020, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner for release of Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing registration No.JH13D-5181 has been rejected, pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Chatra. 3. The case was registered on the written report of the informant who was posted as P.S.I. in Chatra Sadar P.S. alleging therein that on 24.04.2020 at about 11:30 a.m. while he was on patrolling duty on secret information, the said vehicle was stopped in the route of Chatra-Gaya road and on search, poppy seeds and its dust to the tune of 664 Kgs has been found from the vehicle and on that ground, the said vehicle was seized. 4. Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and she was not having any knowledge of transportation of poppy seeds in the said vehicle. He further submits that no purpose will be served if the vehicle in question is allowed to be destroyed in open. 5. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for release of the vehicle and submits that the petitioner was having knowledge of transportation of the incriminating article. He further submits that the husband of the petitioner was using the vehicle and he was arrested from the spot. He also submits that Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act stipulates that the vehicle can be released only when the concerned person is able to prove that it was used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle. It is of no use to keep the seized vehicle at the police station for a long period. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. Paragraphs 5 and 17 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:- "5. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. Paragraphs 5 and 17 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:- "5. Section 451 clearly empowers the court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as: (1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial; (2) to order it to be said or otherwise disposed of, after recording such (3) If the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, the dispose of the same. xxx xxx xxx "17. 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." 7. In view of the above facts, the order dated 02.03.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Chatra in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.436 of 2020 arising out of Chatra P.S. Case No.107 of 2020, pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Chatra is, hereby, quashed. 8. So far as Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act is concerned, that will come into play once the trial is concluded, the Court is inclined to release the vehicle of the petitioner. The vehicle, in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner on her 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. (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) She shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicle in any manner. (v) She 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. (iv) She shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicle in any manner. (v) She 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. The trial court will not insist for bank guarantee and cash guarantee. 10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.