JUDGMENT :

ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Binod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Uma Shankar Verma, learned CGC for the Union of India through virtual Court proceedings.

2. In the present application preferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 01.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Khagaria in Special Case No. 18 of 2016, arising out of Khagaria P.S. Case No. 698/2016, whereby the petitioner's petition for release of his motorcycle bearing registration No. BR-34K-1834 seized in the aforesaid case, has been rejected saying that the final order is to be passed at the time of passing of judgment.

3. The aforesaid N.D.P.S. case was registered on the basis of self statement of the informant under Section 8/20(b) (ii) A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter in short referred to as the N.D.P.S. Act) stating therein that while he was on duty for maintaining law and order, on seeing the police one person tried to flee away by his motorcycle, on chase, he was stopped and on search 175 gms. Ganja was recovered from his possession.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the first information report. It is further submitted that after perusal of the seizure list, it appears that P.S. case number is mentioned on it and as such it falsified the prosecution story. After lapse of more than 2 years trial is not concluded. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s motorcycle is lying in open sky and its condition is deteriorating day to day.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the motorcycle in question. He has filed a petition for release of the motorcycle but the learned Court below without taking into consideration of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 290 and General Insurance Council and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2010) 6 SCC 768 rejected the petition vide order dated 01.11.2017 saying that the final order is to be passed at the time of passing of the judgment. He has submitted that if his motorcycle is not released, the same would become junk, as it is lying in open space in the police station.

6. Mr. Uma Shankar Verma, learned CGC fairly conceded that in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and General Insurance Council and others (supra), the learned Court below ought to have released the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner. However, he has submitted that while releasing the motorcycle the Court must impose stringent condition so that the petitioner may not alienate the same and produce it as and when required by the Court.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the record.

8. The horrifying situation of the case property such as vehicles, machines etc. found lying in police station premises and Court premises and ultimately becoming junk and loosing their value engaged attention of the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra). In the aforesaid case, after examining the scope of Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. the Supreme Court held that the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously.

9. In paragraph 5 and 7 in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:-

“5. Section 451 clearly empower 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 sold or otherwise dispose of, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary.

(3) If the property is subject to speedy and natural decay to dispose of the same.

...............

...............

7. In our view, the powers under