Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This revision application has been preferred, against the order dated 10.04.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, Hazaribagh in T.R. No. 45 of 2014 arising out of Patratu P.S. Case No. 230 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3531 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the Court below has rejected the petitioner’s application filed under Section 451 Cr. P.C. for release of the Tata Safari vehicle bearing registration No. JH0BA-5368, which was seized by the police in Patratu P.S. Case No. 230 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 3531 of 2013. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the F.I.R., it is evident that the police had intercepted the vehicle i.e. Tata Safari bearing registration No. JH0BA-5368. It is alleged that from the said vehicle, five packets of Ganja were recovered and one carbine along with four 9 mm cartridges was recovered from the vehicle. The said vehicle was occupied by passengers namely, Amrendra Tiwari @ Ramendra Tiwari, who made a confessional statement that he is involved in smuggling of Ganja and extortion business along with his associates and the vehicle is used for the said purpose. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the vehicle is registered in the name of the petitioner which is evident from Annexure-3. That the petitioner is a senior citizen and a lady and she had no knowledge that the said vehicle would have been used for such illegal purpose. That the vehicle has been purchased on hire purchase agreement and is financed by the M/s Tata Motors Finance Company Ltd. and the petitioner has been paying the monthly installments. That the vehicle is the only source of livelihood for the petitioner. That presently the vehicle is lying without any use under the open sky and in an uncared manner which is causing damage to the said vehicle. That it is settled principle that a seized vehicle should be released to the owner. That the petitioner is willing to abide by any terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 5. That it is settled principle that a seized vehicle should be released to the owner. That the petitioner is willing to abide by any terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the police report was called for by the trial Court in connection with the release of the vehicle and the police in the report dated 27.02.2014 have stated that if the vehicle is released it will be again used for extortion purpose; and the vehicle was being used by the husband of the petitioner for extortion. 6. Heard. It is settled proposition of law that a vehicle seized by the police should not be kept unnecessarily by the police and should be released to the custody of the owner. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat reported in 2003 (1) JCR 153 (SC), it has been held in paras 16 and 17 as under:- “16 However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons. 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.” 7. In the instant case, from the documents and the police report, it is evident that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle, which has been financed by the Tata Motors Finance Company and the petitioner is paying the monthly installments. Thus detention of the vehicle will cause hardship and financial loss to the petitioner. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the vehicle i.e. Tata Safari bearing registration No. JH0BA-5368 is directed to be released to the custody of the petitioner namely, Swatika Tiwari @ Swastika Tiwari on her furnishing indemnity bound of Rs. 3 lacks with two sureties. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the vehicle i.e. Tata Safari bearing registration No. JH0BA-5368 is directed to be released to the custody of the petitioner namely, Swatika Tiwari @ Swastika Tiwari on her furnishing indemnity bound of Rs. 3 lacks with two sureties. One of the surety shall be an owner of a vehicle registered in the District of Hazaribagh. 9. The trial Court is directed to grant interim custody of the Tata Safari bearing registration No. JH0BA-5368 by ordering it to be released in favour of the petitioner on her giving an undertaking:- (i) that she shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicle in any manner till conclusion of the trial. (ii) She shall not change the colour or identification of the vehicle in any manner. (iii) She shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Trial Court before the Court or any competent authority. (iv) She shall ensure that the vehicle is not used for any illegal purpose or criminal activities. (v) any other condition which the trial Court deems fit and proper. 10. With the said direction, the order dated 10.04.2014, passed by learned Special Judge, Hazaribagh in P.S. Case No. 230 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 3531 of 2013, is, hereby, set aside. 11. In the result the application is hereby allowed. Application allowed.