JUDGMENT 1. - These three misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred against the three orders dated 6.6.98 passed by the learned Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Bhilwara on three separate applications filed by the petitioners in connection with the F.I.R. No. 92/97 of P.S. R.S.B.I., Jaipur. 2. The short facts of the case are that Shri Navneet Thakkar, who is the husband of petitioner Smt. Alka Thakkar, and son of Smt Manorma Thakkar and Vinod Kumar was working as Zonal Forest Officer at Bhilwara. On a complaint that Shri Thakkar had collected huge wealth by misconducting himself as public servant the Bureau of Investigation arranged a raid. It was found that Navneet Thakkar had property worth Rs. 10,90,000/- more than his known sources of income. Not only that, he had property in the name of his wife and parents. F.D.Rs., Share Certificates, sale-deeds etc. were seized by the police within are in the name of the petitioner. The petitioners made applications before the Special Judge for returning their property. The learned Special Judge by the impugned orders passed separately in three cases rejected their applications. 3. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the property mentioned in the applications of the petitioners is in the name of the petitioners, therefore, they are entitled to the return of the same. He pointed out that various F.D.Rs. have become due which require renewal and licences also require renewal. He also pointed out that the accounts books and floppy have been taken away by the police with the result that the business of the petitioners has been adversely affected. Pointing out that the petitioners may like to dispose of the shares at the appropriate time, he urged that all the documents be returned to the petitioners. He submitted that though there is no need of the property which belonged to the petitioners in the trial of Navneet yet the petitioners are prepared to furnish photostat copies of each and every document and are also prepared to furnish personal and surety bonds undertaking to produce them or the amount mentioned therein as and when called upon by the Court. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the application on the ground that the entire property belongs to accused Navneet Thakkar and it is only 'Benami' in the name of the petitioners which should not be returned to them. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the application on the ground that the entire property belongs to accused Navneet Thakkar and it is only 'Benami' in the name of the petitioners which should not be returned to them. 5. I have carefully considered the above arguments. It is not in dispute that the property mentioned in the applications of the petitioners stand in their name. It is yet to be proved by the prosecution that the property standing in the name of the petitioners was obtained from the income of Shri Navneet Thakkar and it is 'Benami' in the name of the petitioners. It is relevant to state that it is the case of Vinod Kumar that he was the Head Master and when he retired on 30.6.89 he had purchased the F.D.Rs. from his pensionary benefits. It is the case of Smt. Alka Thakkar that she has got her separate income from agriculture and Alka Medicos. The case for Smt. Manorma is that she was employed as District Education Officer and her monthly salary was Rs. 11,000/- and that the F.D Rs. and the Mutual Funds Certificates were purchased by her from her own income. The petitioners have been interrogated by the Investigation Officer. In their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. they have given the details of their personal income and the property owned by them. In view of the material on record, at this stage it cannot be said that there is no case in favour of the petitioners. 6. The matter is still at investigation stage. On 14.12.98 it was directed that the investigation be completed by the end of December, 1998. It was not done. Again on 4.1.99 it was directed that the investigation be completed by 13.1.99, yet the investigation has not been completed. The Public Prosecutor could not tell as to how much time is likely to be taken in the investigation. It will be harsh on the petitioners if the property is allowed to remain with the police for indefinite period. 7. Taking all the facts into consideration, I deem it proper to return the property collected from the petitioners to them on certain conditions. 8. It will be harsh on the petitioners if the property is allowed to remain with the police for indefinite period. 7. Taking all the facts into consideration, I deem it proper to return the property collected from the petitioners to them on certain conditions. 8. The petitioners are, therefore, allowed and it is directed as follows- (i) The I.O. shall deposit the documents mentioned in the applications of the petitioners filed in the court of Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Bhilwara, within three weeks. Even if challan is not filed within three weeks, the documents mentioned in the application shall be deposited in that Court. The petitioners may obtain certified photo-copies of all the documents from the court. On filing certified copies of the documents by the petitioners, the Court shall deliver the original documents to them on condition that each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs with one surety in the like amount undertaking to agree to the terms hereinafter mentioned and to produce the documents/amount mentioned therein as and when called upon by the aforesaid Court. (ii) The petitioners shall be entitled to deal with the share certificates including certificates of mutual funds. In that case he/she will furnish full account of the transaction to the Court within four weeks of the transaction. (iii) The petitioners shall be entitled to get the F.D.Rs. and other deposit certificates renewed or encashed. The petitioners shall inform the court about the transaction within four weeks of renewal/encashment, (iv) The petitioners shall not be entitled to transfer the immoveable property on the basis of the documents handed over to them in respect of the immoveable property without obtaining orders from the court, (v) The petitioners shall be entitled to get the amount from the L.I.C. on the maturity of the policy. The intimation of the same shall be given to the Court within four weeks of the receipt of the amount, (vi) The petitioners shall be entitled to produce the books of accounts in the Income Tax Department or any other department of the Government if required to do so, (vii) The petitioners shall be entitled to get the registration certificate of the vehicles or the licence renewed, (viii) The floppy shall be returned to the petitioners, who shall furnish the print of the floppy with a certificate that it is the true and correct copy of the entries in the floppy. Petition Allowed-Property Returned To Petitioners. *******