JUDGMENT : P.K. Patra, J. - In these two revision petitions.under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal (Procedure, the Petitioners have prayed to set aside the order dated 9-4-99 passed by the learned S.D. J.M., Sundargarh in G.R. Case No. 96 of 1999 rejecting their applications u/s 457, Cr. P.C. for release of the seized vehicles bearing registration numbers OR-16-9333 and OSS 5659 and to direct release of the said vehicles in their favor. Both these two cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State were heard at length. 3. Ghanashyam Singh, Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 229 of 1999 is the registered owner of the Tipper (truck) bearing registration number OR-16-9333 and Petitioner Saroj Kumar Singh in Criminal Revision No. 228 of 1999 is the registered owner of the truck bearing registration number OSS 5659. Both the vehicles were seized by police on 2-3-1999 alleging that building materials were stolen from the construction site after threatening the informant and were carried in the above vehicles. A case was registered u/s 379, I.P.C. in the Town P.S., Sundargarh vide G.R. Case No. 96 of 1999 in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh which was subsequently converted to a case u/s 395, I.P.C.. Both the Petitioners filed petitions u/s 457, Cr. P.C. for release of their respective vehicles and the learned S.D,J.M. by the impugned order dated 9-4-99 rejected the prayer on the ground that the vehicles were involved in commission of serious crime u/s 395, I.P.C.. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Petitioners were in no way connected with the crime alleged in this case and at best the offence alleged would be u/s 379, I.P.C. and that there is no chance of confiscation of the seized vehicles and that the vehicles are kept in open space subject to vagaries of nature and are being damaged. On the above grounds he urged for release of the seized vehicles in the Zima of the Petitioners who are the registered owners thereof. 5. On the above grounds he urged for release of the seized vehicles in the Zima of the Petitioners who are the registered owners thereof. 5. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance on the decisions Re: Abhimanyu Sahoo v. State of Orissa reported 11 (1998) 15 O.C.R. 109 and Gouri Shankar Sabat v. State of Orissa reported in (1998) 14 O.C.R. 583 . In the first case it has been held that where the condition of the seized article is likely to deteriorate the same' may be released in favor of the person entitled to its possession on furnishing adequate property security with some conditions, violation of which would amount to contempt of Court. Where question of identification of the seized materials is involved, ordinarily it would not be proper to direct release of such vehicle and also where there is possibility of confiscation, the Court is to consider whether release would be in the interest of justice or not. In the second case it has been held that when the seized vehicle was lying exposed to sun and rain, the application u/s 457, Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the vehicle in the custody of the registered owner was permissible on furnishing an indemnity bond with some conditions. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the decisions referred to above, it would be expedient to allow the prayer of the Petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 4.9-99 is set aside and it is ordered that the seized vehicles, OR-16-9333 and OSS 5659, be released in favor of Petitioners Ghanashyam Singh and Saroj Kumar Singh respectively on their furnishing property security for Rs. 3 Lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs) each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh with conditions that they shall not use the vehicles for any illegal purpose or in any manner which is likely to reduce their value and will keep the vehicles good running condition and produce the same as and when required by the Court. The Criminal Revisions are accordingly allowed. Criminal Revisions allowed. Final Result : Allowed