JUDGMENT 1. - These two petitions are directed against a common order dated 7.5.2005 whereby the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chipabadoda, District Bara had rejected an application under section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Since, both the petitioners have challenged the same impugned order, therefore, both the petitions preferred by the petitioners are being decided by this common order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-28-2M-0682 belonging to the petitioner Gorilal and another motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-28-2M-3845 belonging to the petitioner Hariram were seized by the police in a case for offence under sections 420, 489-A. 489-B and 489-C. I.P.C. 3. Subsequently, both the petitioners had filed applications under section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code for supurdgi of their respective motorcycle to them. But vide common order dated 7.5.2005 learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the said applications. Hence, these petitions be- fore this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Niraj Tiwari, has argued that the petitioners are the registered owners of the respective vehicles. He has further submitted that these motorcycles were not recovered from the possession of the petitioners. He has further argued that neither for the purpose of investigation, nor for the purpose of trial, these vehicles are required anymore. Hence, he has prayed that motorcycles should be handed over to the respective registered owners. 5. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that one of the co-accused is still absconding. Secondly, these vehicles were involved in a grave offence under sections 489-A, 489-B and 489-C, I.P.C. Therefore, the vehicles should not be handed over to the petitioners. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 7. Merely because one of the co-accused is absconding, cannot be a reason for denying the sapurdgi of the vehicles in question to their registered owners. Accordingly, to the registration papers, the petitioners are the owners of the respective vehicles. Interestingly, learned Judicial Magistrate has also noted that although there in the seizure memo of one of the motorcycle indicates registration No. RJ-20-2M-3845 but the chassis and engine number are the same as shown in the registration certificate of the motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-28-2M-3845. Thus, it is obvious that Shri Gorilal is the registered owner of the said motorcycle. Undoubtedly, the police no longer requires the motorcycles for any further investigation. Thus, it is obvious that Shri Gorilal is the registered owner of the said motorcycle. Undoubtedly, the police no longer requires the motorcycles for any further investigation. Therefore, no beneficial purpose would be served by keeping these motorcycles in the custody of the police at the police station. The constant exposure of these vehicles to the natural elements-would worsen their condition. Repeatedly, this Court has held that the loss of a vehicle is not only a loss to the individual, but is also a loss to the nation. 8. Therefore, while allowing these petitions, we direct that motor- cycle bearing registration No. RJ-28-2M-3845 should be handed over to the petitioner Gorilal and motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-28-2M-0682 should be handed over to the petitioner Hariram. However, both the petitioners are clearly directed not to sell, mortgage, gift or transfer these vehicles to any other party during the pendency of the trial. They are further directed to produce their respective motorcycles as and when required by the police of the trial. They are further directed to produce their respective motorcycles as and when required by the police or required by the Trial Court immediately upon receiving an information or notice from the police or the Trial Court for such production, as the case may be. 9. In view of the above observations, both the petitions are allowed. Petitions Allowed. *******