JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amar Saran, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. The Station House Officer, police station Attra, district Banda is present before this Court in compliance of the order dated 12.2.2008. An explanation has been submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate as to the circumstances why the counter affidavit has been filed with delay. In view of the fact that file has been misplaced in the office of the Government Advocate, Allahabad, no further action in this regard is required against the investigating officer. 3. As the counter affidavit is on the record, in my view, there is no need for calling rejoinder affidavit in the present case. 4. This application has been filed with a prayer to quash an order dated 29.10.2007 passed by the Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Areas Act, Banda whereby the learned Judge had rejected the applicant’s application purportedly under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and to issue a direction to the Station House Officer, police station Attra, district Banda to release the Bolero Jeep No. U.P. 90-C6431 in favour of the applicant after taking adequate surety. 5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle and he had purchased the same in the year 2006 from Star Automobiles, Satna and a sale certificate is appended and that his vehicle has been used during the Vidhan Sabha Elections, 2007. On 26.4.2007 at about 5.00 P.M. when the vehicle was plying for campaigning for Smt. Piyaria, the candidate of Rastriya Lok Dal and was driven by the Driver Surendra Singh Arakh alias Kallu, then the Attara police seized the vehicle and arrested the driver and falsely implicated him in a criminal case and took the registration, insurance papers and driving licence and tore them up and pulled out the number plate of the Jeep. However, all the accused have been granted bail. 6. However, all the accused have been granted bail. 6. The contention of the learned A.G.A. on the other hand was that on 15.4.2007 at about 6.45 P.M. Surendra Singh Arakh alias Kallu was apprehended along with other co-accused while he was engaged in illegal work and in an illegal manner he was collecting people for supplying meals to Thokia gang and he was a unable to show any vehicle papers and there was an attempt to rub off the engine and chassis numbers and, therefore, there was a suspicion that the vehicle was a stolen one and a case was registered as case crime No. 98 of 2007, under Sections 387-A/216-A/489-G/171-E, IPC and 14 of Dacoity Affected Areas Act. The vehicle was detained at the police station and a report was called from the Forensic Laboratory with regard to the engine and chassis numbers. The report showed that the numbers were not very clear. 7. Learned Judge has found the matter to be suspicious (although there was no dispute that the vehicle stood registered in the name of the applicant and no one claimed ownership of the vehicle), hence he did not direct release of the vehicle in favour of the applicant. 8. In the Courter affidavit also the same position has been reiterated about the vehicle being used for providing meals to Thokia gang and about the lack of clarity of engine and chassis numbers etc. and that there was an apprehension of the vehicle being a stolen one. 9. Significantly, although the vehicle is said to have been apprehended on 15.4.2007 and about ten and a half months have elapsed and no one else has come forward to claim the said vehicle nor any material has been collected by the investigating officer nor any FIR has been registered of the vehicle being a stolen one, but he has simply reiterated the earlier objections to the applicant’s application under Section 457, Cr.P.C. that there is apprehension that the vehicle could be a stolen one. 10. Prima facie, this appears to be very peculiar reason for keeping the vehicle in police custody where there are all the risks of the vehicle being decayed and rusted because of ill-keep. 10. Prima facie, this appears to be very peculiar reason for keeping the vehicle in police custody where there are all the risks of the vehicle being decayed and rusted because of ill-keep. It is also very easy to make vague and not easily verifiable allegations that the accused were engaged in supplying food items to the members of the Thokia gang if the police wants to justify its seizure of a vehicle. 11. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle any more in police custody and the same should be released in favour of the applicant forthwith after taking adequate surety from him for production of the same before the Court as and when required by it. 12. However, it is provided that the applicant shall not tamper with it or change its looks. Appropriate panchnama can be prepared of the vehicle before it is handed over to the applicant. The Court concerned should record the evidence and decide the matter in which the vehicle is involved promptly so that the dispute with regard to the vehicle is finally resolved. 13. The aforesaid directions are consistent with the observations of the Apex Court in Sundar Bhai Amba Lal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 . With these observations, this application is allowed. ————