ORDER : Heard Mr. Sabyasanchi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application has been directed against the order 23.09.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Garhwa in connection with Bishunpura P. S. Case No. 30 of 2016 corresponding to G. R. No. 1193 of 2016 by which the Officer In-charge of the police station has been directed to seize the vehicle bearing registration no. JH01BM/8515 belonging to the petitioner. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was the surety at the time of the release of the vehicle bearing registration no. JH14D/7000 belonging to one Deepak Pratap Deo. He further submitted that since the vehicle was purchased by one Munna Ansari much prior to the incident, the petitioner has filed an application for discharging him from his liability of surety in release of the vehicle, but vide order dated 23.09.2016, the Scorpio vehicle belonging to Deepak Pratap Deo as well as Tata Safari bearing registration no. JH01BM/8515 belonging to the petitioner has been ordered to be seized. He further submits that the vehicle bearing registration no. JH14D/7000 has already been seized by the police, the question of further seizure of the vehicle belonging to the petitioner does not arise. It has been submitted that the learned court below should confine itself only with respect to the seizure of the vehicle and not with respect to the vehicle to which the petitioner is the owner. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer. 5. It appears that in connection with Bishunpura P.S. Case No. 30 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Section 115 of the I.P.C. and the provisions of the Arms Act, the Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no. JH14D/7000 was seized. Subsequently, on the release application preferred by the owner of the said vehicle, the same was released in his favour and the petitioner give surety for which certain conditions were imposed at the time of the release of the vehicle. Subsequently, an application was preferred by the petitioner that since the vehicle in question was allegedly purchased by Munna Ansari much prior to the incident from Deepak Pratap Deo, the petitioner be permitted to withdraw his surety and be discharged from his liability of being a bailor. Subsequently, an application was preferred by the petitioner that since the vehicle in question was allegedly purchased by Munna Ansari much prior to the incident from Deepak Pratap Deo, the petitioner be permitted to withdraw his surety and be discharged from his liability of being a bailor. Said application of the petitioner was considered by the learned court below and vide order dated 23.09.2016, such prayer was rejected. A further direction was passed with respect to seizure of the Scorpio vehicle as well as the vehicle belonging to the petitioner so that he may not make the vehicle disappear in order to frustrate the order of this court. When admittedly terms and conditions of the release has been flouted, the learned Magistrate is perfectly justified in directing the seizure of the Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no. JH14D/7000. Pursuant to such direction, the said vehicle which was earlier released was seized and is in police custody. The subsequent order of the court below for seizure of Tata Safari bearing registration no. JH01BM/8515 did not arise as there is already a direction of seizure of Scorpio vehicle on account of non-fulfillment of terms and conditions of its release. 6. In such circumstances, therefore, the latter part of the order dated 23.09.2016 by which a direction has been given to the Officer In-charge of the concerned police station for seizure of Tata Safari bearing registration no. JH01BM/8515 which belongs to the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. So far as the rest part of the order is concerned, the same is affirmed. 7. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.