Order : 1. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 12.05.2023 passed by the Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Cases, Jaipur, Metropolitan-I (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') by which the learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 read with Section 457 of Cr.P.C for release of the vehicle No. RJ-14-TB-3083 which has been seized by Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur City (East) in FIR No.70/2023 in connection with the offence punishable under Section 8/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registered owner of seized vehicle is Ramesh Chand Meena, who has sold this vehicle to the present petitioner by way of agreement to sell. The vehicle has been seized from the possession of the present petitioner and there is no one else to claim the vehicle. He further submits that the so called contraband was recovered from the petitioner and not from the seized vehicle. The vehicle was seized on 09.02.2023 since then the vehicle is lying idle in the police station and is being deteriorated. 3. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat , reported in (2002)10 SCC 290 and Co-ordinate Bench Judgments dated 14.08.2012 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2682/2012 : Phool Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and in cases of Bal Mikand vs. State , reported in 1994 Cri Lr (Raj) 4 Prakash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.416/2010 decided on 12.03.2010 & Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan , S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.61/2018 decided on 16.04.2018, he submitted that vehicle be released in favour of the petitioner on furnishing ‘supurdginama’. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that as per the provisions of NDPS Act, the vehicle seized is liable to be confiscated, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the vehicle released in his favour. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of the vehicle on the basis of agreement to sell and there is no one else to claim the vehicle. The vehicle is lying idle since 09.02.2023 in the police station. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of the vehicle on the basis of agreement to sell and there is no one else to claim the vehicle. The vehicle is lying idle since 09.02.2023 in the police station. Now, it is no more res integra that vehicle seized under the provisions of the Act of 1985, can be released in favour of its registered owner; though, may be an accused, if no order of confiscation has been passed. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted factual report dated 23.10.2024 of SHO Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur City (East), which shows that the process of confiscation of the vehicle has not been started, which is taken on record. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that learned trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner to release the vehicle only the ground that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated. 8. In these circumstances, this petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order dated 12.05.2023 passed by Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Jaipur, Metropolitan-I is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the vehicle, Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire No. RJ-14-TB-3083 be released in favour of the petitioner on ‘supurdginama’ on producing original registration certificate and on satisfying conditions:- (1) He furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to produce the vehicle in question in the Court as and when required to do so. (2) He shall get the vehicle in question photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the Investigating Officer, to be kept on the file of the case. (3) The personal bonds of the petitioner and bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner and her sureties and the bond of sureties shall further carry the photographs of persons identifying them before the Court with full residential particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them. (4) The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question and not to lease it to any one and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable. 9. (4) The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question and not to lease it to any one and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable. 9. It is directed that the learned trial Court before releasing the vehicle in question on ‘supurdginama’ shall ascertain the fact that the petitioner has purchased the vehicle by way of agreement to sell from its registered owner. 10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. 11. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.