1. This petition under section 482 of CrPC has been filed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and to set aside the order dated 2.5.2015 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, in S.T.No.43/2015 by which the learned trial Court has disallowed the application for releasing the seized Tractor No.MP 67 AA 0162 and its trolley allegedly involved in Crime No.210/2014 registered at Police Station Kachnar, District Ashok Nagar, for the offences under sections 302, 201, 120B, 109, 404, 34 of IPC.

2. Allegedly the tractor was involved in the crime because the tractor was used for deliberately dashing against the Maruti Car in which Gopal Singh was seated. Due to this dashing with the car and subsequent events, Gopal Singh died.

3. Learned trial Court on filing an application under sections 451 and 457 CrPC, rejected the same, stating that the tractor may be again used for commission of crime and the tractor is a subject of evidence.

4. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the tractor has been seized on 8.11.2014 and since then it is stationed in open and is subjected to corrosion and it will be damaged if not used.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State opposed the application.

6. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2003 SCC (Cri) 1943], Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that powers under section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely :

1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

4. this jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

7. In the case of Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore [(1997)4 SCC 358], the apex Court has dealt with the cases where seized article were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles.

8. It is worth mentioning here that, when a subject matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant. The idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases.

9. In the view of this Court, in the present situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicle in the police station for a long period. It is for the Court to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

10. In the light of the same, the application is allowed. It is directed that the seized tractor and trolley which is registered in the name of the petitioner Jai Pal Singh be released to him subject to the following conditions :-

1. That, the petitioner will execute a bond of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs only) and a surety to the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

2. That, the petitioner will not change the machinaries of the tractor except necessary repairing essential for running the tractor.

3. The petitioner will not transfer or dispose the tractor without permission of the trial Court.

4. When the trial Court order to make available the tracto