IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.88 of 2010 Pankaj Kumar, son of Nand Kishore Prasad, resident of Snbarsa, P.S.- Warisaliganj, District- Nawadah. …………..Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ……….Opposite Party ---------------------------------- 2. 22.12.2011 Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Let it be kept on the record. This revision application has been preferred against the order dated 2.02.2009 and 30.10.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada and the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Nawada respectively in C.R. Case No.670/2008, Trial No.2015/2009 by which the prayer of the petitioner to release the Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration no.BR-27A-2093 seized in Pakari Barawan (Dhamaul O.P.) P.S. Case No.44/2008 in favour of the petitioner has been rejected. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle, which has been seized in connection 2 with Pakari Barawan (Dhamaul O.P.) P.S. Case No.44/2008 and the said vehicle is lying in the police station since 14.05.2008 uncared and the value of the vehicle is deteriorating day by day. His prayer for release of the said vehicle has been rejected by the learned C.J.M. on the ground that it is an exhibit in trial of that case and later on, the petitioner renewed his prayer before the learned Judicial Magistrate, which has also been rejected by him vide order dated 30.10.2009. He has further submitted that the vehicle could be released on certain conditions. The learned counsel for the State submits that the vehicle was used in committing the offence under Section 384 of the I.P.C. by the accused petitioner and it is a material exhibit in that case. Considering this fact, the learned C.J.M has refused the prayer. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the material on the record, it appears that the prayer of the petitioner has been refused on the ground that the vehicle in question has been used in committing the offence and the learned Magistrate has refused the 3 prayer vide order dated 30.10.2009 on the ground that the prayer of the petitioner has earlier been rejected by the learned C.J.M. It is admitted fact that the vehicle is lying in the premises of the aforesaid police station uncared and its value is deteriorating day to day. It is settled principle of law that there is no use to keep the vehicle for a long period and it should be released after taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned orders are not fit to be sustained. The impugned orders are set aside. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Nawada 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. 4 (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 to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. In the result, this application is allowed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)