The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's ownership of the vehicle, the likelihood of the vehicle getting damaged, and the absence of confiscation proceedings, leading to the allowance of the release of the vehicle on superdari.

T.P.S. Mann, J. - By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Special Judge, Ambala on 29.8.2006, whereby his application for the release of his vehicle on superdari was declined.

2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was alleged to be driving a Maruti car of white colour on 31.5.2006 and from the said vehicle, a bag containing poppy husk, weighing 40 kgs. was recovered. A ruqa was prepared by SI Ashwani Kumar at the time of the said recovery, on the basis of which FIR No. 88 dated 31.5.2006, was registered at Police Station Barara under Section 15 of the NDPS Act against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested and the vehicle in question taken into possession by the police.

3. On 1.8.2006, the petitioner moved an application before learned Special Judge, Ambala for the release of the vehicle in question to him on superdari, being its registered owner. Reply was filed by the police to the effect that the car in question had been used in the transportation of contraband and therefore, in view of the decision of this Court in Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005(4) RCR(Criminal) 300, the prayer of the petitioner be declined. Vide order dated 29.8.2006, the trial Court found no justification to release the car in question on superdari to the petitioner and dismissed the application.

4. While challenging the order, the petitioner has submitted that he had been allowed bail in the case on 26.7.2006 and being the registered owner of the car, he was entitled to get the same released on superdari as the trial of the case was likely to take a long time. If the vehicle is allowed to remain in police custody, its value would be reduced as the same would get spoiled.

5. Reply was filed by SI Subhash Chand, SHO, Police Station Barara, wherein it was stated that the charges have already been framed against the petitioner and the case fixed for recording of prosecution evidence for 1.2.2007. However, it was stated that no separate proceedings with regard to the confiscation of the car in question have been initiated so far by the trial Court.

6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed before me.

7. It is not disputed by the respondent that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. The petitioner has already been released on bail by the trial Court. If the vehicle is allowed to stand in the Police Station, it would not remain roadworthy. Its machinery, colour and tyres would be damaged. The trial of the case is likely to take a long time. No useful purpose. would be served by keeping the vehicle parked in the premises of the Police Station, especially when confiscation proceedings have not yet been initiated by the concerned Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to give an undertaking that as and when the Court would require the aforementioned vehicle, he will produce the same in the same condition before the concerned Court.

In Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006(4) RCR(Criminal) 719, this Court while relying upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003(1) RCR(Criminal) 380 and Roop Chand and Company v. State of Punjab, 1996(1) RCR(Criminal) 401, allowed the prayer of the accused petitioner therein for release of the vehicle on superdari in a case under the provisions of NDPS Act. The decision in Tarsem Singhs case (supra) may not be applicable to the present case as in spite of the fact that the car in question was taken into possession of 3.5.2006, confiscation proceedings have not yet been initiated, although more than seven months have elapsed.

9. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and the undertaking given by the petitioner, it will be in the interest of justice if the vehicle in question is ordered to be released on superdari to the petitioner on his furnishing the requisite undertaking.

Accordingly, the present revision is allowed. The impugned o