Order : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. The present petition is being filed by the present petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 01.02.2025 passed in Crime No. 297/2024 by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bilaspur, whereby the application under Section 503 of the BNSS, 2023 for taking custody of vehicle bearing registration No. CG 13 UJ 4981, Chassis Number – MA3NYFB1SGD107256 on Supurdnama has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the prosecution story in brief is that based on informer information, the Gaurla Police seized a total of 160 Kilograms of Cannabis (Ganja), along with the Vehicle Brezza, TUV, and a Mobile Phone from the joint possession of the accused persons namely Uday Chauhan and Tulsi Bai, Near the Main Road Bridge at Harratola. During the investigation, it was stated that the Cannabis (Ganja) was loaded into the vehicle by other accused persons, who piloted it to Bilaspur via Odisha, Jagdalpur, Bilaspur, and Gaurla routes. As a result, the vehicle was also seized from the joint possession of the accused Anuj Adile, Arun Chandra, and Uttara allas Sahil Khunte. The documents presented by the applicant and the original RC attached in the case diary show that the present petitioner (Raju Sidar) is the registered owner of the seized vehicle. On 02.09.2024 at 08:00 P.M., the Police of Police Station Gaurela, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) lodged the First Information Report (F.I.R) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. on 13.12.2024, the petitioner moved the application under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) for taking custody of Vehicle [Model - Maruti Suzuki Vitara Brezza ZDI, Registration No. CG 13 UJ 4981, Chassis Number MA3NYFB1SGD107256] on Supurdnama along with necessary documents of the Vehicle before the Learned Special Judge (NDPS) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Copy of the application under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 along with other relevant documents. vide order dated 01.02.2025 passed in Crime No. 297/2024, the Learned Special Judge (NDPS) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ha wrongly rejected the application of the petitioner for taking custoc of Vehicle [Model - Maruti Suzuki Vitara Brezza ZDI, Registration M CG 13 UJ 4981, Chassis Number MA3NYFB1SGD107256] on supurdnama. 3. vide order dated 01.02.2025 passed in Crime No. 297/2024, the Learned Special Judge (NDPS) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ha wrongly rejected the application of the petitioner for taking custoc of Vehicle [Model - Maruti Suzuki Vitara Brezza ZDI, Registration M CG 13 UJ 4981, Chassis Number MA3NYFB1SGD107256] on supurdnama. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not an accused in the said crime and the vehicle used for commission of the offence of Excise Act without the knowledge or permission of the petitioner and if any illegal act has been committed by the accused person namely Arun Chandra, for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. He further contended that the vehicle was not involved in any crime, but still the police has seized the vehicle only on the basis of suspicion, therefore, it will be appropriate to release the vehicle on Supurdnama. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submission made in this regard. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and order passed by the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by counsel for the parties and further considering the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in ( 2002) 10 SCC 283 , in para 7 and 17 has laid down 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: I. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; ii. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; iii. if proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepare, 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 property in detail; and iv. 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. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of property in detail; and iv. 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 police station 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. 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. 8. In the instant case, it is pertinent to mention the most important fact of the case that the petitioner has a right to raise any other grounds and also reserving to submit all relevant documents and it is also necessary to note that no useful purpose would be served if the said vehicle is allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the said vehicle can be released to the petitioner, who is claiming herself to be the owner of the article, so that she can use it and the said vehicle does not become junk after some time. It is also pertinent to mention here that in this case, it is found that the said vehicle is left for natural decay for a long period of time and no substantive action has been taken and the said vehicle is still left for irreparable damages. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal desai (supra) and Multani hanifbhai Kalubhai (supra), the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 01.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Crime No. 297/2024 is hereby set aside. 10. 10. In view of the above, it is directed that the said vehicle be immediately be released in favour of the petitioner as interim custody on the following condition that the petitioner would supply the Registration Certificate of the vehicle bearing No.CG 13 UJ 4981 and furnish a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lakh rupees only) with one surety as Supurdnama in the concerned Trial Court, keeping in view that there must not be any alteration in the physical appearance of the said vehicle. It is also pertinent that the said vehicle shall be submitted by the petitioner itself on its own cost, if need so arises. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present petition is allowed.