Judgment ( 1 ) HEARD both sides. ( 2 ) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 was arrested by nilanga Police for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian penal Code. A vehicle bearing registration no. MH-24/f-3117 is attached by the investigating officer on the allegation that it is used for commission of the offence. The petitioner is the financer who lent money to respondent No. 2 for purchasing the said vehicle under Hire Purchase Agreement dated 15-4-2003. ( 4 ) THE petitioner filed an application before the trial Court under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the vehicle on their Bond. Learned trial Judge found that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain an application under section 451 of the Code and rejected the application. This order dated 14th June, 2005 is impugned in this petition. ( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 appeared before Court through counsel and has filed an undertaking that in view of his incarceration it is not possible for him to make payment of the further installments. Therefore, the vehicle should be given to the financer on his behalf. The undertaking is placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a judgment of the Gauhati High Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs. Sadhan roy reported in 1993 Cri. L. J. 2484 wherein it is held that when the financer is real owner, he is entitled to custody of the vehicle. Learned additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1 submitted that in view of the undertaking given by respondent No. 2 it can be seen that the petitioner would be receiving the property on behalf of respondent No. 2 as his representative. Therefore, in any view of the matter the petitioner can be allowed to retain the custody of the vehicle on usual terms and conditions that he should procedure the property before the Court as and when so required. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to enter into controversy as to whether the petitioner has locus standi or not as he can receive the possession of the vehicle as a representative of the registered owner. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to enter into controversy as to whether the petitioner has locus standi or not as he can receive the possession of the vehicle as a representative of the registered owner. In addition, the fact cannot be lost sight of that this is a Hire Purchase Agreement and the financer is the real owner. Be that as it may, having regard to the submissions of both parties, the petition deserves to be allowed. ( 6 ) THE vehicle - J. ep Bajaj Tempo gama Taxi bearing registration No. MH-24/f- 3117 involved in Crime No. 76/2004 registered at Police Station Nilanga for an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code be released in favour of the petitioner on petitioner's executing a Bond for Rs. Three Lakhs on condition that the property shall be preserved in the same condition and shall be produced before the Court as and when so required. ( 7 ) RULE is made absolute in the above terms. Petition allowed.