VIRENDRA SARAN, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been filed by Imtiaz Ahmad and Nisar Ahmad sons of Mukhtar Ahmad RIO. Bir Qazi, P. S. Phoolpur, district Allahabad. ( 2 ) IT is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner Imtiaz Ahmad lodged an F. I. R. at P. S. Phoolpur district Allahabad on 20. 5. 1991 alleging that petitioner No. 1 was chief agent of his brother, petitioner No. 2, who was contesting election of Member of Parliament as a candidate of Samajwadi Janta Dal from Phoolpur Constituency. On 20. 5. 1991 he was a on round to the various polling stations. At about 4. 30 P. M. when he reached Malchawa (Sadalpur) his polling agent Deep Chand informed him that Tulsi Ram Patel and others were creating problems in peaceful polling. In the meantime Tulsiram and others arrived and after a short exchange of words they set fire to Maruti Van No. DL-4c-1 03 and a Jeep No. UGV 6541 and also to some scooters. The writ, petition goes on to state that currency notes worth Rs. 1,65,000/- which belonged to petitioners Firm MIS Star Laminators were also badly damaged in the fire. Some currency notes were fully burnt and some were only partially burnt. Imtiaz Ahmad also produced the said currency notes at the Police Station. The said burnt and partially burnt currency notes were taken into possession. According to the petitioners currency notes worth Rs. 1,35,000/- which arc only partially burnt condition can be exchanged for new notes from the Reserve Bank of India. ( 3 ) AN application was made before learned A. C. J. M. VII, Allahabad with a prayer that the currency notes be returned to petitioner Imtiaz Ahmad. The learned A. C. J. M. VII, Allahabad by his order dated 1. 7. 1991 rejected this prayer. Imtiaz Ahmad, thereafter filed criminal Revision No. 102 of 1991 in the court of Sessions but the revision was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad on 20. 1. 1992. The petitioners have now come up to this Court. ( 4 ) I have heard Sri S. A. Jilani the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. Imtiaz Ahmad, thereafter filed criminal Revision No. 102 of 1991 in the court of Sessions but the revision was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad on 20. 1. 1992. The petitioners have now come up to this Court. ( 4 ) I have heard Sri S. A. Jilani the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. ( 5 ) THE revision order shows that the learned Sessions Judge has refused to release the currency notes mainly on two grounds: first, that it was not clear that the revisionist (Imtiaz Ahmad) was also personally present in the Maruti Van and secondly, that the money being case property could not be released. ( 6 ) THE pre-eminent fact in the present case is that it was Imtiaz Ahmad who had produced these currency notes before the police as is clear from the F. I. R. itself and thus there is no doubt that these half burnt currency notes have come from the possession of Imtiaz Ahmad. It is also note worthy that no other person than the petitioners has come forward to claim these notes. Thus the question whether Imtiaz Ahmad was travelling in the Maruti Van does not have any bearing while considering the release of the currency notes. ( 7 ) THE identify of these currency notes is not at all in question. It is not disputed that large number currency notes have either been burnt or partially burnt. The only question which remains to be decided at the trial is to fix responsibility of the alleged crime. But if the petitioners are deprived of the currency notes of such huge amount of money their business would suffer and the petitioners may be completely ruined at the same time with the passage of time the condition of these half burnt currency notes is bound to go on deteriorating. ( 8 ) THE learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the currency notes being case property cannot be released unless the trial is over. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted. Articles 300a of the Constitution states: No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Article 300 A is a protective provision which operates as a safe guard against any arbitrary invasion of the property rights. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted. Articles 300a of the Constitution states: No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Article 300 A is a protective provision which operates as a safe guard against any arbitrary invasion of the property rights. The right to property consists of a bundle of rights such as ownership, possession, use and enjoyment of property and so on. Thus the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will have to be interpreted in the light of the Constitutionally enacted Right to Property under Article 300a. If the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that property in respect of which any crime has been committed must in all cases be detained in court custody or police custody without examining the purpose of such detention was to be accepted then perhaps the above mentioned provisions of the Code may have to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground that the said provisions spell arbitrariness. However, the provisions of the Code are to construed in a reasonable and fair manner. The detention of property in the custody of the court or the police is a matter which has always to be viewed in the prospective of lis. If the property is indissolubly linked with the lis or any part of the claim then alone the court may detain the property in custody of the court. ( 9 ) WHENEVER the court is countenanced with the question of release of the property involved in a case during pendency of the trial or other proceedings a serious thought has to be given whether actual production of the property before the court will have any bearing on the decision of the case. In most cases the production of the property at the time of the trial may not at all be necessary. In the present case there is no other claimant of the currency notes in question and the release of these currency notes is not going to affect the trial in one way or the other. ( 10 ) THIS writ petition is hereby allowed. In the present case there is no other claimant of the currency notes in question and the release of these currency notes is not going to affect the trial in one way or the other. ( 10 ) THIS writ petition is hereby allowed. The currency notes in question which have been seized in connection with crime No. 41 of 1991 of P. S. Phoolpur, district Allahabad shall be returned to the petitioner on their executing a joint indemnity bond that in case any other person is found to be the owner of the currency notes the petitioners would indemnify him. A certified copy of the order shall be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within three days. Petition allowed. .