ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 the instant writ petition has been filed. Vide the impugned order the respondent No.2 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for releasing his Truck bearing registration No. UP-54/D-4223. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the vehicle number has been wrongly got typed in the impugned order as “UP-54/D-4243” whereas it is in fact “UP-54/D-4223”. The said vehicle was seized by the Excise Department for unauthorizedly transporting 5093.88 bulk liter of foreign liquor. The seizure was made as early as on 20.07.2021 since then the vehicle is in possession of the Excise Department. Meanwhile, the respondent authorities have also initiated confiscation proceedings under the Excise Act in respect of the said vehicle involved with the illegal transportation of the liquor. 3. The petitioner herein is also a co-accused in the criminal case that was initiated pursuant to the seizure of the said vehicle and the criminal case is pending consideration before the J.M.F.C., Jagdalpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has moved an application for releasing of the vehicle on Supurdnama, which stood rejected vide the impugned order dated 05.09.2022, against which the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat” reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283, which has also been followed by this Court in various cases of similar nature. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai” (supra), in paragraphs 7 & 17 has laid down the guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by police. For ready reference the relevant portion is reproduced below:- “7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: 1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; 2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and 4. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and 4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.” 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the polices 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. Similar stand has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, reported in 2013 (3) SCC 240 , wherein the Supreme Court has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the police station in open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of weather conditions for a long period. In the said case, trial is going on and confiscation proceeding is yet to be completed and therefore no useful purpose would be served if the vehicle is allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions at the police station. On the contrary, if the vehicle can be released to the Petitioner subject to certain conditions he can use it so that the vehicle does not become junk after some time. 7. The aforesaid stand of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been followed by this High Court in “Kamta Prashad Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh” WPC No. 517 of 2022 and numerous other cases also and where this Court had ordered for release of vehicle on Supurdnama conditionally. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is also inclined to entertain and allow the present writ petition and direct that till the confiscation proceedings are completed by the District Collector, the seized vehicle belonging to the petitioner be released to the petitioner upon his furnishing an appropriate bond and guarantee to the satisfaction of confiscation authorities for release of the said vehicle. In the bond he shall give a specific undertaking that he shall not change the ownership of the vehicle, nor shall he change the colour of the vehicle, neither shall he create a third party right or interest over the said vehicle as long as the confiscation proceeding is not concluded. He shall also undertake that he would be producing the vehicle as and when required by the prosecution/State Authorities either for the purpose of investigation or trial in the criminal case going on or even at any appellate stage later on. He shall further undertake before the respondent-authorities that he would be meeting all the requisite formalities required under the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules as long as the vehicle is in custody of the petitioner. So far as surety is concerned, it shall be for an amount equal to the present day value of the vehicle seized to the satisfaction of the concerned Authorities. 9. The present writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.