Judgment : 1. The respondent has today filed counter affidavit. 2. The submissions made by Mr. R.J.Karthick, learned Counsel for the petitioner and by Mrs. S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) representing the respondent are heard. 3. A case was registered against the petitioner herein and two others, based on the complaint of one Saravanan S/o Perumpadaiyan. It has been alleged in the complaint that while he was clearing the shrubs which were causing hindrance to the free movement of vehicles on Mangammal road at Velayuthapuram in front of his company, using a JCB bearing Registration No.TN-69-Q-5977, the petitioner and others came there and raised objections and besides raising objections, abused them using filthy language and also assaulted the driver and cleaner of the JCB; that when they were questioned regarding the proprietary of their act by the Officers of the defacto complainant's Company, the petitioner drove a Bolero car bearing Registration No.TN-69-AK-2072 and deliberately hit it against the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-65-H-2497 belonging to Senthilkumar, the security officer of the company of the defacto complainant and that in addition to that, the petitioner and the people, who came along with him, caused threat to kill them. 4. The said case was registered as Cr.No.132 of 2014 for offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323, 427 and 506(i) I.P.C. As the Bolero car was allegedly used as a weapon for the commission of offence, the same was seized and was remanded in the said case. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner preferred an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin under Section 451 Cr.P.C. praying for an order directing the entrustment of the interim custody of the vehicle to him. After hearing the objections of the police in the above said petition, which was taken on file as Cr.M.P.NO.3780 of 2014, the learned Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 24.07.2014, directing the release of the vehicle to enable the petitioner to have its interim custody on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10Lakhs along with one surety for a likesum, with a further condition that the surety should produce solvency certificate with the attestation of the Tahsildar, besides incorporating other usual conditions. 5. 5. Complaining that the conditions imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the said order dated 24.07.2014 and especially the condition fixing the amount of bond as Rs.10Lakhs whereas the value of the vehicle at the time of purchase itself was Rs.7Lakhs with a further direction that the surety should produce solvency certificate attested by the Tahsildar, were too onerous, the petitioner has come forward with the revision petition. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that apart from the fact that the learned Judicial Magistrate fixed neaerly double the amount of the value of the vehicle as the amount for which the bond has to be executed, the learned Judicial Magistrate has also imposed a condition that the surety should produce a solvency certificate attested by the Tahsildar; that the said condition, according to the petitioner, is onerous and that such onerous condition should be modified. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would contend that the very same vehicle was involved in yet another criminal case and was released pursuant to an order passed in that criminal case; that even thereafter, the petitioner used the vehicle for the commission of offences alleged in the present case; that there is every possibility of his using the vehicle for his unlawful activities if it is released and that strictly speaking, the vehicle ought not to have been released. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that under such circumstances alone, such a stringent condition came to be imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and that the same does not deserve any interference by this Court in exercise of its power of revision. 8. The rival submissions made on both sides are taken into consideration. 9. The offences alleged are I.P.C. offences, which do not warrant confiscation of the vehicle in the normal circumstances except for satisfying the compensation, if any, that may be ordered in the criminal case or the fine that may be imposed. When such is the case, the vehicle should not be allowed to lie idle either in the Court compound or in the police station compound exposed to natural calamities. The purpose of seizing the material objects is to enable the prosecution to lead evidence in proving its case. When such is the case, the vehicle should not be allowed to lie idle either in the Court compound or in the police station compound exposed to natural calamities. The purpose of seizing the material objects is to enable the prosecution to lead evidence in proving its case. If at all the vehicle was used as a weapon for the examination of the offence or as a means of transport either for going to the scene of occurrence for the commission of offence or for escaping from the scene of occurrence after committing the offence, the same can be proved by the necessary muchalika, photograph and the registration certificate of the vehicle. 10. Keeping in mind the various directions issued by the Apex Court as to how the vehicle seized in a criminal cases is to be disposed of, the learned Judicial Magistrate has chosen to take a correct decision to give the interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner, who is the owner as per the registration certificate, that too when there was no rival claim. However while passing such an order, the learned Judicial Magistrate seems to have arbitrarily fixed the amount of bond without taking into accounts the value of the property, which is to be temporarily released. 11. Even in cases wherein a vehicle can be confiscated under a special enactment, there are provisions to the effect that the owner of the vehicle can get back the vehicle after paying the value of the vehicle to the confiscating Authority. That be so, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the fixation of the bond amount which has no relevance with the value of the vehicle, is highly unreasonable and arbitrary. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the vehicle was purchased as a new one for a price of Rs.7Lakhs and add. He would also submit that if the depreciations are taking into consideration, then the value as on the date of seizure could not exceed Rs.5Lakhs. The above said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be brushed aside as unfounded. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the bond amount has to be reduced to Rs.5Lakhs from Rs.10 Lakhs. 12. The above said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be brushed aside as unfounded. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the bond amount has to be reduced to Rs.5Lakhs from Rs.10 Lakhs. 12. So far as the production of surety is concerned, the learned Judicial Magistrate has not committed any error in permitting the petitioner to produce only one surety to the above said amount but subject to the condition that the surety should get the solvency certificate to the extent of amount of bond. Such a certificate can be directed to be obtained from the Tahsildar. Hence this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said part of the order. 13. For all the reasons stated above, the revision succeeds and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate is modified by reducing the bond amount to Rs.5Lakhs from Rs.10Lakhs and the amount for which the solvency is to be shown by the surety is also reduced to Rs.5Lakhs. In all other respects, the order of the Judicial Magistrate, subject to the above said modification, shall stand confirmed.