JUDGMENT :

Madan Gopal Vyas, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 1.8.2018 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali in Criminal Case No. 24/2018 pertaining to FIR No. 01/2018 registered at Police Station Sanderao, District Pali for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, whereby the prayer to release the seized Swift VDI car bearing No. RJ39-CA-1800 on supurdaginama in favour of the petitioner, has been rejected.

2. As per prosecution story, 47.100 Kgs of poppy husk without having any license or permit was recovered from the Swift VDI Car bearing No. RJ39-CA-1800. After investigation, the police found that one Bhajan Lal Bishnoi was owner of the said vehicle and there is an agreement to sale dated 4.9.2017 between the petitioner and said Bhajan Lal Bishnoi for selling the said car to the petitioner.

3. The trial court has rejected the application filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking interim custody of the subject vehicle on the ground of severity of offence and possessing the narcotic substance by the petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well the order impugned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for interim custody of the subject vehicle submits that there is an agreement to sale dated 4.9.2017 whereby one Bhajan Lal Bishnoi sold out the said car to the petitioner, and therefore, he is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that said Bhajan Lal Bishnoi has stated in police statement that he has sold out the car in question to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, to contend that the Supreme court has held that the vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the order impugned passed by the trial court, prays for rejection of the revision petition.

7. Having heard the rival submissions and perusal of the record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the interim custody of the vehicle alleged to be used in committing the offence of NDPS Act cannot be denied on the ground of severity of offence. It is also settled legal proposition of law that interim custody of the vehicle cannot be denied on the ground that it is liable to be confiscated, in case the offence is proved against the accused. As per prosecution story, the vehicle was found in possession of the petitioner and there is an agreement to sale of the said car in favour of the petitioner.

8. Keeping in mind the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (supra), there is no reason to deny interim custody of the vehicle to the owner or person entitled to get possession of the vehicle. If the vehicle is allowed to be kept in the police station for an indefinite period, then value of the vehicle shall be diminished substantially and it may not remain in usable condition. In the above circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

9. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.8.2018 passed by learned trial court is set aside and Swift VDI car bearing registration No. RJ39-CA-1800 is ordered to be released on 'supurdagi' in favour of the petitioner till completion of the trial on the following conditions:-

(a) the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court undertaking to produce the vehicle aforesaid in the Court as and when required to do so.

(b) the petitioner shall get the vehicle aforesaid photographed showing the