R. Basant, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Magistrate (copy of which is produced as Annexure 2) under which her prayer for release of a lorry allegedly used for illicit transportation of river sand was dismissed.

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and there is no justification in the insistence of continued retention of the vehicle in the custody of the Police / Court. The learned Magistrate has overlooked the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 KHC 535: 2003 (2) KLT 1089 : 2002 (10) SCC 283 : AIR 2003 SC 638. Subject to appropriate conditions, the vehicle may be ordered to be released to the petitioner, it is prayed.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer. The learned Public Prosecutor only submits that appropriate conditions may be imposed.

4. I am satisfied that all Courts must avoid the unfortunate consequence of valuable property suffering damage and deterioration in the custody of the Courts. Where such loss is avoidable, subject to appropriate stipulations, the vehicle can be released to the person best entitled to possession thereof. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this Crl MC can be allowed.

5. In the result:

(a) This Crl MC is allowed.

(a) The vehicle i.e., lorry bearing registration No. KL-4/M 4956 shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall furnish documents to satisfy the Court that she is the owner entitled to possession of the vehicle.

(ii) She shall make a cash security deposit of Rs.25,000/- before the learned Magistrate.

(iii) She shall execute a bond for an amount equal to the value of the vehicle to be determined by the learned Magistrate with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner.