JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under section-482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner Om Prakash being aggrieved against the order dated 12-2-1992 of Addl. Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Bundi. 2. The facts of the case are that Truck No. RJG 5554 was seized by the police in criminal case FIR No. 21/92 which was registered under sections-279 and 304 A IPC. The FIR was lodged at police station Hindaun by Head Constable Satya Narain on Jan. 27, 1992, who had seen the dead body of the deceased, who suspected to have died in an accident by a vehicle. 3. The petitioner being the registered owner of the said truck moved an application for the custody. The said application was rejected by the learned Magistrate simply on the ground that the driver of the said truck was not traceable. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the registered owner of the said truck which was purchased by him from Sh. D.K. Upadhyay. The learned counsel further submits that there is no other claimant of the said truck and all the documents relating to the said truck are in his favour. The learned counsel argued that the petitioner is a bona fide resident of Kota, as such, the said truck may be handed over in his custody. It was also submitted that if the said truck is kept in the police custody, which is being kept in an open place at the police station, it will be damaged and by the time the case is decided, the truck will be of no use. The learned counsel submits that the said truck shall be produced by the petitioner as and when required by Court, during the pendency of the trial or enquiry as the case may be. 5. The learned public prosecutor opposes this petition. I have seen the order of the learned trial court. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice the photostat copy of the registration certificate in which the said truck has been registered in the name of the petitioner. Other documents have also been produced before me to show that all the documents relating to the said truck are in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice the photostat copy of the registration certificate in which the said truck has been registered in the name of the petitioner. Other documents have also been produced before me to show that all the documents relating to the said truck are in favour of the petitioner. It is also not in disputed that there is no other claimant of the truck and the truck has been seized in a case under section-279 and 304A IPC. The truck is in the police custody which is lying in an open place. This has been the consistent practice of this Court that as far as possible a vehicle should not be allowed to be kept unprotected in an open place. 6. Thus, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the said truck should be given in the custody of the petitioner during the pendency of the enquiry or trial, as the case may be, on the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall submit a supurdgianama in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. two lacs only) and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Addl. Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Bundi; (ii) that the petitioner shall produce the said truck as and when called upon to do so by the aforesaid court or any other court during the pendency of the enquiry or trial, as the case may be; (iii) that the petitioner shall not transfer or otherwise part with the possession of the truck to anybody else without the prior permission of the trial court; (iv) that the petitioner shall also furnish three coloured photographs of the truck in cabinet size, to be taken from different angles showing the registration number of the said truck; and (v) that the truck shall be kept in the same condition by the petitioner till the final order is passed by the trial court. *******