The liability of a vehicle to confiscation under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is not a bar to its release on 'Supurdagi' (security) under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provided that suitable conditions are imposed to ensure that the vehicle is produced in court as and when required.

1. - The present petitioner is the registered owner of truck No. MOU 3309. On 25-6.93 at about 9 a.m , the police found that this truck was loaded with 226 bags of Poppy husk. The truck was being driven by Nissar Bhai; the other occupants of the truck were Mahfooj Khan and Pappu. The truck as also the bags of Poppy husk were seized and all the three persons sitting in the truck were arrested.

2. The petitioners moved an application before the learned trial Judge for release of truck pending investigation and trial. This application was opposed on behalf of the learned P P. of the court below. The contention raised on behalf of the State was that petitioners belong to M.P. and if the truck was released on 'Supurdagi, the truck may not be brought back at all. It was also submitted that there was no allegation to show that truck would not be taken care of at the police station. Lastly, it was urged that investigation was still pending. All these contentions prevailed with the learned trial Judge and trial Judge rejected the application for release of truck by his order dated 26-7-97 passed in Cr. Case No. 82/93. Aggrieved, petitioners have come to this court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Judge has acted in a highly improper manner and has given specious reason for not releasing the truck. It is submitted that the truck is likely to be damaged and ruined if it is allowed to remain in police custody. It is submitted that the petitioners are prepared to furnish proper security for production of the truck on all the dates of hearing on which the production of the truck may be required and, therefore, the truck should be released on furnishing proper security.

4. Shri C.R. Jakhar P P. for the State opposes the application for release of truck and submits that in case the prosecution succeeds in showing that the truck was being put to use for transportation of Poppy husk illegally, the truck is liable to be confiscated hence, the truck should not be released. He has also taken the plea that the petitioners in this case belong to M.P. and there is no likelihood of the truck being produced, once released.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions. In Balvinder v. State 1988 Cr. LR (Raj) ) 47 . a learned Single Judge of this Court had an occasion to deal with a similar matter and a similar contention was raised that the truck was liable to be confiscated and, therefore, the truck should not be released. The contention was repelled and it was observed as follows

"No, doubt, after the amendment in the Act, a truck or a vehicle in which the opium or other some commodity is transported is liable to be confiscated but before passing of such an order, it is necessary to make arrangements for the safe custody of the vehicle. If it is allowed to remain in the open place at police station then no one will take care of it and the condition shall be deteriorated if It is ordered to be confiscated what is required during the pendency of the trial is to make arrangement that the truck remains in the present condition and is produced before the court as and when it is called for."

6. The learned Single Judge allowing the application for release imposed suitable condition, The observations made by learned Single Judge commend themselves to me also. If the truck is allowed to remain in police custody, its condition is bound of deteriorate and a judicial notice can be taken of this fact that Police stations in Rajasthan do not have motor garages where they may keep heavy vehicles like trucks and buses in safe custody

7. The contention that petitioners are resident of M.P. and, there. fore, truck should not be released, is wholly untenable. To my mind necessary conditions can always he imposed to ensure that the truck is produced in the court as and when required by the Court.

8. The contention that the investigation was pending and, there-I fore, truck should not be released, is