Judgment :- i) Furnishing the immovable vehicle security worth Rs.4,50,000/-; ii) Furnishing personal security for like amount; iii) Colour, parts not to be changed-Vehicle not sold or destroyed; iv) Retaining in same condition and produce the vehicle as and when required.) The petition is filed seeking to modify the conditions imposed by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in releasing the vehicle for interim custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is a case where the owner of the vehicle having lodged a complaint of theft to the respondent Police immediately after he lost his vehicle Toyota Qualis bearing Registration No.KL-08-9-103 received the insurance amount from the petitioner and thereafter executed a letter of subrogation to the petitioner. 3. The case in crime No.651 of 2002 on the file of the respondent police was registered and the investigation is still pending. 4. The petitioner United India Insurance Company having got a letter of subrogation from the owner of the vehicle who lost it on payment of the entire insurance amount to the owner, filed an Application under section 451 of the Cr.P.C. before learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, who has jurisdiction to deal with this case and the said learned Judge was pleased to order return of the aforesaid vehicle with the condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-and furnish property security to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-. The further condition would read that the petitioner shall not either change the complexion of the vehicle or alienate the same. The petitioner has also been directed to produce the vehicle as and when required. 5. The Court heard the submissions made on either side. 6. The petitioner has become the undisputed owner of the subject vehicle Toyota Qualis bearing Registration No.KL-08-9-103 in the aftermath of the letter of subrogation received by the petitioner from the erstwhile owner of the vehicle. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would bring to the notice of this Court that there is no progress in the investigation of this matter as the accused is absconding right from the date of evidence. 7. Admittedly, no charge sheet was laid before the Court by the respondent Police completing the investigation in this case. The petitioner who has become the owner of the vehicle has to now realise the amount shelled out in its capacity as insurer of the vehicle. 7. Admittedly, no charge sheet was laid before the Court by the respondent Police completing the investigation in this case. The petitioner who has become the owner of the vehicle has to now realise the amount shelled out in its capacity as insurer of the vehicle. If the condition imposed by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai is complied with, the question of mitigating the loss suffered by the petitioner on account of settlement of the insurance claim for the theft of the vehicle under the Policy of Insurance issued by it will not arise. It is an onerous condition to direct the Insurance Company to maintain the vehicle and produce the same as and when required by the Court for the purpose of trial. It is a fact that vehicles seized in cases of theft are simply kept in the open place in the Police Station or in the campus of the Court, which ultimately leads to deterioration in the value of the vehicle. 8. This is a case where the respondent Police could not even file charge sheet, zeroing in on the accused involved in the crime of theft. The real accused in this case allegedly committed theft may or may not face the trial in this case, if the tardy progress being made in the matter of investigation is taken as indicator. The petitioner is after all a public Sector Undertaking owned by the Government of India. The petitioner does not have any personal interest either over the criminal case pending investigation. Even if the accused is arrested and brought before the Court to face trial of this case, the seizure memorandum prepared by the Investigating Officer at the time of seizure of the vehicle, the extract of the Property Register maintained by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and the photographs of the vehicle can very well be produced as substantial materials to establish that the vehicle involved in the case of theft in Crime No.651 of 2002 on the file of respondent Police is none other than the vehicle bearing Reg No. KL-08-S-103 which was stolen by the accused and thereafter appropriated by the Petitioner herein as a rightful owner of the vehicle as per the orders of the Court. 9. 9. It is found that the petitioner could not take the custody of the vehicle as onerous condition has been imposed by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. At this distance of time two years have lapsed and the vehicle would have definitely lost some value. Now the time is ripe for the petitioner atleast to sell away the vehicle to mitigate the loss already suffered by it. 10. In view of the above, the conditions imposed by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in Cr.M.P.No.3309/2005 dated 16. 2005 stands quashed and the respondent Police is directed to take photographs of the vehicle and produce the same before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, who shall return the vehicle concerned to the petitioner herein forthwith by obtaining an undertaking from the petitioner that the petitioner would make good the loss, if any, found by the Court in connection with the vehicle entrusted to it. The petitioner is at liberty to dispose of the vehicle as it deems fit to salvage and mitigate the loss on account of the settlement of insurance claim already it has made to the erstwhile owner of the vehicle. 11. The learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai shall mark the seizer memorandum of the vehicle concerned, relevant extract of the property register and the photographs taken and produced before it, in case the case in Crime No.651 of 2002 on the file of the respondent Police is taken up for trial on filing charge sheet. The petition is disposed of accordingly.