N. B. ASTHANA, J. According to the petitioner his father Suleman and one Sanjay alias Sanju were murdered when they were going on a Motor Cycle belonging to the petitioner bearing Registration No. HR-29-B 7321. They were having some money in cash which was removed by the murderers. The other version is that Suleman and Sanjay came on a Motor Cycle at the house of Ram Pal Singh and fired from the gun and pistol which they were carrying upon Ram Pal Singh who narrowly escaped. A large number of villagers then collected and killed Suleman and Sanjay alias Sanju in exercise of right of private defence. On the basis of report lodged by Ram Pal Singh case Crime No. 183 of 1995 under Section 307, I. P. C. and 184 of 1995 under Section 25, Arms Act against Suleman and Sanjay were registered. It may be noted at this stage that since both these accused are no more, cases in the aforesaid two crime numbers are not likely to proceed. 2. According to the petitioner the report about the murder of Suleman and Sanjay was not recorded at the police Station and therefore a Writ Petition No. 262 of 1996 filed In this Court and on the basis of the direction issued by the Court Case Crime No. 183-A of 1995 under Sec tions 147/148/149/395/302, I. P. C. was registered at Police Station Bhawan, District Muzaffar nagar, 3. The petitioner applied for the release of Scooter in his favour. This application was rejected. The revision filed was also rejected. He has now come to this Court undar Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 1-2-1996 and 11-12-1995 (Annexures 8 and 7 to the writ petition) passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to release the Motor Cycle in question. 4. The petitioner has been opposed by the State. A counter affidavit has also been filed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have looked into the record. 6. The scooter in question was seized by the police as case property in Crimes Nos. 183 of 1995 and 184 of 1995. These cases are not likely to proceed as the accused in these two crimes numbers are already dead. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have looked into the record. 6. The scooter in question was seized by the police as case property in Crimes Nos. 183 of 1995 and 184 of 1995. These cases are not likely to proceed as the accused in these two crimes numbers are already dead. The police did not say that this Motor Cycle is case property in Crime No. 183-A of 1995, while according to the petitioner it is case property in that crime number as the deceased wore riding this Motor Cycle when they were killed and looted. 7. The petitioner no doubt says that it is case property in the aforesaid crime but in the circumstances it is released in favour of the petitioner it would not prejudice the prosecution in any way. The peti tioner would be interested in the conviction of the murderers of his father and Sanjay. In the normal course he would not tamper with Motor Cycle in any way so as to weaken the prosecution case in the aforesaid murder trial. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 can have no apprehension in that regard. If the Motor Cycle is permitted to remain at the police station, it is likely to be damaged and in due course of time may even become unfit for use. In order to prevent the Motor Cycle from becoming useless it is just and proper that it should be released in favour of the petitioner, who is admit tedly its registered owner. The writ petition accordingly succeeds. 8. The writ petition is allowed. The two orders in question are quashed. Respondent No- 3 is directed to release the Motor Cycle in favour of the petitioner upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to produce the Scooter whenever required by any court to produce before it with usual conditions to prevent the petitioner from disposing it of during pendency of the trial and from changing its colour etc. or damaging it in any way. He would keep it in working condition Appeal allowed. .