1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2805 OF 2009 Sou Ashwin Ashok Patil : Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra : Respondent .... Mr.P.R.Salvi for the petitioner. Mr.J.P.Kharge, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MAY 03, 2010. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor waives service for the State. Heard by consent. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad, dated 23.1.2009 thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for release of the properties on supurtnama. 3. The petitioner is the registered owner of a Maruti car bearing registration no.MH/12/AF 3753 which was seized in connection with 2 C.R.No.13/2008 registered by Khopoli police station for offences punishable under sections 307, 341 and 323 of the I.P.C. The petitioner had filed an application for return of the said proeprty. The said application came to be rejected on 6.7.2008. However, while rejecting the said application, liberty was granted to the petitioner to move a fresh application. Accordingly, a second application came to be moved. The same is also rejected. Hence, the present petition. 4. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposes the petition on the ground that the petitioner does not own a driving licence and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the application. 5. I find that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge in passing the impugned order is totally erroneous. There is no requirement in law to possess a driving licence for purchase of a motor vehicle. Undisputedly, the vehicle is registered in the name of the present petitioner. The learned Judge has rejected the application only on the ground that the petitioner does not possess a driving licence and that she did not notify that the vehicle was missing. 6. The apex Court in the case of Sunderbai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, has held that if a vehicle is 3 seized in a crime, it is in the interest of justice, to release the same on supurtnama by imposing certain conditions in order to avoid rusting of the vehicle. 7. In that view of the matter, the present petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order:- O R D E R (i) The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application of the petitioner for release of the vehicle bearing registration no.MH/12/AF 3753 is allowed subject to her executing a bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in the trial Court to the effect that during the pendency of the trial, he shall keep the vehicle in good condition and would not dispose of the same and shall produce the same as and when directed by the learned trial Judge. (ii) The rule is made absolute in the above terms. B. R. GAVAI, J.