RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.

1. Heard the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.2.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 3093 of 2012 corresponding to Mango (Azad Magar) P.S. Case No. 512 of 2012 by which prayer of the petitioner for permission to sale of the vehicle bearing Registration No. JH-05A-7432 has been rejected.

2. It appears that chasis manufactured by the petitioner met with an accident on 17.10.2012 at Pardih, Jamshedpur, damaging the electric pole and transformer, for which a case was registered under Sections 279 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The vehicle was seized and subsequently on an application preferred by the petitioner for release of the vehicle, the same was released vide order dated 22.1.2013 on the condition that vehicle in question should not be disposed of and shall be produced before the court or before the I.O. as and when required till the disposal of the case. Further condition was imposed that it shall not change the physical gesture of the vehicle in question till the disposal of the case.

3. The petitioner preferred an application for permission to sale the said vehicle which, however, was rejected on 21.2.2017 by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, which is the subject matter of the present case.

4. Assailing the impugned order dated 21.2.2017, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is involved in manufacturing of chasis of heavy vehicles and on account of imposition of the conditions by the learned Judicial Magistrate, at the time of releasing of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner, has caused constraints as the petitioner is not able to convert the chasis into a heavy vehicle for the purpose of selling it.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the vehicle was released in the year 2013, the same has depreciated to a considerable extent, as it cannot be used for transportation and is being subjected to natural decay.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, for permission to sale the vehicle in question, has relied upon the order passed by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 585 of 2017 on 28.3.2017.

7. Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. It is admitted fact that the petitioner is being engaged in manufacture and sale of commercial vehicles. The chasis of the petitioner met with an accident, resulting in its seizure and subsequently, the same was released by learned Magistrate after imposing certain terms and conditions. It is also admitted fact that since the gesture of the conditions of vehicle was directed not to be changed, it has, therefore, remained non-operational, as without converting the same into a heavy vehicle, it is factually of no use and is being kept lying idle and being subjected to natural decay. The commercial aspect of the matter has also to be looked into.

9. Since, neither the trial is proceeding at a fast pace which would entail completion of the trial and removal of the conditions imposed while releasing the chasis nor can the said chasis be made operational without the conditions having been imposed by the learned Magistrate being relaxed.

10. In the case of Tata Motors vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in Cr. M.P. No. 585, this Court on virtually similar issue had put certain terms and conditions to the petitioner while relaxing the condition for physical production of the vehicle in question. The terms and conditions of the aforesaid case under reference is as follows:--

"Taking a cue from the judgment and considering the fact that the petitioner company will not be able to sale the vehicle since it relates to B.S.-III Mass Emission Standards which will became obsolete from 1st April, 2017, the terms and conditions as indicated by the learned Magistrate in the order dated 11.5.2016 needs to be modified.

Accordingly, th