1. - Being aggrieved with the order dated 11.3.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, jodhpur, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 Cr.P.C., for releasing of Honda CRV, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a power of attorney holder of Ms. Arshiya Sultan. Ms. Arshiya Sultan is the partner of Indian Broiler Farm. Since the visit of the partner were frequent, the said vehicle was given to one Mr. Vikas Datatray Naik. Mr. Vikas Naik parked the vehicle - Honda CRV bearing No. M.H./31, C.N.1115 outside his house. In the night of 17.9.2010, the said vehicle was stolen. Therefore, a F.I.R. was lodged at Versova Police Station Mumbai, registered as F.I.R No. 304/2010. On 10.10.2010 Police found one Honda CRV carrying illegal Doda post (Polly Straw) and opium in an abandoned condition at Bhagat Ki Kothi, Railway Station, Jodhpur. Thereafter a F.I.R No. 68/2010 was registered on 10.10.2010 at Police Station - G.R.P. (N.R) Jodhpur under Sections 8/18, 8/15 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and under Section 3/25 of the Arm Act against unknown persons. In the said F.I.R, it was alleged that the vehicle C.R.B. Honda bearing No. RJ-27, CA-5333, engine No. K24A15401547, Chasis Number JHLRD77495C310323 was recovered from the Bhagat Ki Koti Railway Station, Jodhpur Carrying Doda post of 347 Kg. and 500 gram and 100 gms., of opiwun. The petitioner being a special power of attorney Holder of the owner of the vehicle rushed to Jodhpur and filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Jodhpur. He requested for release of the seized vehicle. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 vide order dated 18.11.2010. Being aggrieved from the order dated 18.11.2010, the petitioner filed a revision petition, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 854/2010 before this Hon'ble Court. This Court, vide order dated 6.12.2010, dismissed the revision petition. The petitioner came to know that the accused in the case were arrested and their statement have also been recorded. Therefore,, the petitioner again field an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. However, the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S., Jodhpur vide order dated 11.3.2011 dismissed the application. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. This learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the cases of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, JT 2002 (10) SC 80 , Bharat Mehta v. State by Inspector of Police, Chennai, AIR 2008 SC 1970 and on the case of General Insurance Council & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2010 Cri.L.J. 2883 to buttress his contention that even if a vehicle were involved in a criminal offence, the petitioner is entitled to seek the custody of the vehicle. Secondly, the Apex Court had laid down certain guidelines for exercising of power under Section 451 Cr.P.C in the of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra.) However the said guidelines have been ignored by the learned Judge while dismissed the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C.

4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently contended that under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act, the vehicle is Subject to confiscation by the Government. Therefore, the custody of the vehicle should not be given to the petitioner.

5. Hand the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned other as well as the case law citied at the Bar.

6. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for the exercise of power under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The guidelines dealing with the vehicles are as under:

"13. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the Police Station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles becomes