JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State. The order dated 23.2.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Criminal Revision No. 58 of 2003 as well as the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (P), Kujanga on 22.11.2003 in G.R. Case No. 238 of 2003 ejecting the petition filed by the Petitioner for release of the motor-cycle are under challenge. 2. It appears that a Hero Honda Splender motor-cycle bearing registration No. OR05-G-7207 was seized in connection with the aforesaid G.R. Case registered for commission of offences under Sections 395 and 397 of the Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The Petitioner as owner of the said motor-cycle, tiled an application u/s 457 Cr. P.C before the learned Magistrate for release of the same. The petition was rejected on the ground that the vehicle would be required for the purpose of identification and it also appears that the documents with regard to ownership of the vehicle were not property placed before the learned Magistrate. The Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444 held that: In our view, whatever be the situation. It is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for' a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. xxx However, those powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers u/s 451 Code of Criminal Procedure are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly. 3. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly. 3. In view of what has been stated in the aforesaid case, whatever may be the situation, the vehicle should be released in favour of owner of the vehicle pending disposal of the case. The learned Magistrate can also impose condition for release of the vehicle such as not to change the character of the vehicle, not to, sale etc. till conclusion of trial. 4. I, therefore, allow the petition, set aside both the orders and direct the learned Magistrate to reconsider the petition keeping in mind the decision of the Apex Court as indicated above. If the learned Magistrate is satisfied that the Petitioner is the owner of the motor-cycle, the same shall be released in his favour on such terms and conditions as the learned Magistrate may deem just and proper. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application. Final Result : Allowed