1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.948 OF 2009. Ambadas S/o Rambhau Dhakane, Age 29 years, Occ.Business, R/o Ausarkar Mala, Sarasnagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. ... Mr.N.V.Gaware, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, A.P.P. for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 16.10.2009. PER COURT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. 2. The petitioner is registered owner of a motor cycle vehicle bearing registration 2 No.MH-16-AG-302 . The motor cycle in question was seized by the Police during course of investigation in context of Crime No.102/2009. Allegedly, the motor cycle was used by brother of the petitioner at the relevant time. The brother of the petitioner is reportedly charge-sheeted for offence of murder in view of material gathered during investigation of Crime No. 102/2009, registered at MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar. The motor cycle was seized from some different place. 3. The petitioner submitted an application for custody of the motor cycle on the ground that he is the registered owner thereof. He is ready and willing to execute necessary bond. His application (Cri.M.A.No.499/2009) came to be rejected vide the impugned order dated 18.8.2009, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Ahmednagar. 4. Heard learned counsel and learned A.P.P. 3 5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is amply clear that the application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the charge-sheet was yet to be filed and the application was U/s 457 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate held that the investigation was in progress and, therefore, restoration of the motor cycle to the petitioner was not warranted because it could be useful as the evidence in the trial. It is difficult to appreciate the reasoning ascribed by the learned Magistrate. The motor cycle was not used as a weapon of the assault nor its identification was necessary during the course of the assault because the registration number and other particulars are already known to the Investigating Officer. If at all any purpose is to be achieved, the I.O. could have specifically stated so before the learned Magistrate. That was not done as would be manifested from the tenor of the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that the charge- sheet has been filed. Obviously, the very basis of the impugned judgment is no more in existence. 4 6. It is well settled that ordinarily a registered owner is entitled to the custody of the vehicle during pendency of the Criminal proceedings. The petitioner has prima facie, made out a good case so as to seek custody of the vehicle in question. He has placed on record copy of the registration certificate (Exh.A). In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The motor cycle be restored to the custody of the petitioner on his execution of "Supurdnama" in sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand) before the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Ahmednagar, and on condition that he shall not transfer the vehicle till disposal of the Sessions Case and will maintain the same as it is and if so required, the same will be produced before the Sessions Court during course of the trial. Rule made absolute accordingly. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp94809