IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1091 of 2010 Siya Ram Rai s/o Ram Dayal Rai, r/o village Ballochak, P.S.- Dalasing Sarai, Distt- Samastipur. .. Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar .. Opposite Party. ----------- 2. 27.09.2011 This revision application is directed against the order dated 24.5.2010 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in N.D.P.S. Case No. 2 of 2009 by which the prayer of the petitioner to release the motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR33C/ 3271 has been rejected on the ground that earlier such prayer was rejected vide order dated 4.11.2009. The allegation is that in course of checking 13 kg of ganja contained in two packets was recovered and seized from the motorcycle being driven by the accused. The motorcycle and ganja were seized by the police. It is submitted that the petitioner had given his motor-cycle to his cousin brother, Mahesh Kumar Rai who resides in the same village for his personal work for an hour but when he did not return it, then the petitioner started to search about the motorcycle and came to know that his motorcycle 2 has been seized. It has also been stated that a report was called for from the Hasanpur police for the release of the aforesaid vehicle which is lying in the Hasanpur police station in open place and its value is deteriorating day to day. It has also been stated that it has also come to light in the report of forensic science laboratory that seized ganja article was not ganja, moreover, the petitioner is ready to produce the vehicle whenever and wherefrom it is required. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the motorcycle of the petitioner was seized and Hasanpur P. S. Case No. 91 of 2009 was instituted under Sections 414 I.P.C. and 20 NDPS Act. Later on it was registered as NDPS Case No. 2 of 2009. The prayer of the petitioner for release of the aforesaid vehicle has been rejected on the ground that such prayer of the petitioner had earlier been rejected vide order dated 4.11.2009. Since the 3 vehicle is lying in open place and its value is deteriorating day to day, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur is directed to get the aforesaid vehicle released in favour of the petitioner on the following conditions:- (i) the petitioner will produce the documents regarding the ownership of the vehicle. (ii) the petitioner will not sell, mortgage or lend the vehicle to any one. (iii) the petitioner will not change the nature or colour of the vehicle. (iv) the petitioner will produce the vehicle if and when required by the police/Court. (v) the petitioner will furnish a bond of Rs.30,000/-with two sureties of the like amount. In the result, this application is allowed. Let a copy of this order be sent to 4 the court below through fax at the cost of the petitioner. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)