ORDER

Heard.

1. The instant petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for taking the vehicle bearing registration No.CG-28/AT0901 on temporary supurdgi against the order dated 31.8.2021 passed in Special Case No. 03/2021 by Special Judge (NDPS), Anuppur, District Anuppur (M.P.), whereby learned Special Judge rejected the applicant's application filed under section 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C to get the interim custody o f the Innova Car bearing Registration No. CG-28/AT-0901, Chesis No. MBJ117V4007-1666250309, Engine No. 2KD6288568 which was seized by the Police Station Kotma, District Anuppur in Crime No.10/2021 registered for the offence punishable under section 8/20 of NDPS Act.

2. Brief facts of the case which are relevant to the disposal of this petition are that, Police Kotma has seized a Innova Car bearing Registration No. CG28/AT-0901, Chesis No. MBJ117V4007-1666250309, Engine No. 2KD6288568 in respect of Crime No. 10/2021 registered for the offences punishable under section 8/20 of NDPS Act. After investigation police filed the charge sheet and on that charge sheet, Special Case No. 03/2021 was registered which is pending before Special Judge (NDPS) Anuppur, District Anuppur. During pendency of case, the applicant, who is the registered owner of the said vehicle filed an application under sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. before Special Judge (NDPS), Anuppur for getting interim custody of the said vehicle. The learned Special Judge rejected the application vide order dated 15.4.2021. Being aggrieved by that order, applicant filed this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the registered owner of the said Innova Car bearing bearing Registration No. CG28/AT-0901, Chesis No. MBJ117V4007-1666250309, Engine No. 2KD6288568, so he is entitled to get the custody of said Innova Car. He further submitted that learned Special Judge committed mistake in rejecting the prayer of the applicant and not giving the said vehicle in custody. In this regard, counsel has relied on the apex Court judgment in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2003 SC 638 and Tikeshwar Singh v. State of Chhatishgarh (Cri.Misc. Petition No.1374/2020), whereby the Court held that whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep seized vehicle at Police Stations for long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking bond and guarantee as well as security for return of said vehicle, if required at any point of time. Hence, counsel prayed that the application be allowed.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the submissions of the counsel for the applicant and has submitted that the said vehicle was seized for carrying illegal Ganja under the NDPS Act, therefore, trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the applicant.

5. This Court has gone through the record and arguments put-forth by both the parties. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the applicant is the registered owner of the seized vehicle. There is no provision in the NDPS Act to restrict the power of the trial Court to release the vehicle in interim custody. It has been held by this Court in the case o f Pandurang Kadam v. State of M.P. 2005 (2) ANJ MP 351 , that notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, it may be released in interim custody in appropriate cases. Thus, interim custody should not be denied to the owner of the vehicle, simply because it is liable to be confiscated under section 60 of the NDPS Act. The High Court of Tripura, Agartala in the case of Sri Sankar Das v. State of Tripura (Cri. Petition No.9 of 2018, decided on 16.3.2018) has held in paras 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 as under :-

"[9] Substantively, directions in Union of India v. Mohanlal (supra) are concerned with the storage and disposal of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. However, in Para