JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. Since the facts and circumstances exists in both the petitions are same, instead of repeating the facts, both the matters are clubbed together and disposed of by a common order. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners/applicants challenging the orders on two applications filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. passed by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.Nos.874/2017 and 873/2017 respectively dated 6.7.2017. 2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri C.H. Jadhav appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutors Sri. B.N. Jagadeesh and Sri. Venkatesh P. Dalwai, appearing for the respondent. 3. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the Court below without applying its mind has dismissed the petitions erroneously by coming to a wrong conclusion. It is his further submission that the bank accounts which have been seized during the course of investigation belonged to the petitioners/applicants. They are not connected in any way with the offence which is said to have been alleged against accused. It is further submitted that whether the said amount is disproportionate amount of the accused is a subject matter which has to be decided only when the accused has been heard and finally adjudicated. He further submitted that at this juncture there is no prima facie material to show that the said amount belongs to accused. He further submitted that they are ready to offer the surety and indemnity bond whichever is feasible in this behalf. He further submitted that if the said amount is kept idle, it is going to cause much inconvenience to the petitioners/applicants and financial loss. It is further submitted that the marriage of the petitioner Miss. Chandana in Criminal Revision Petition No.1090/2018 (sister of petitioner Smt. V.S. Swathi in Criminal Revision Petition No.1088/2018) has been fixed and already engagement has taken place and because of non-availability of the funds the said marriage has been postponed and if the said amount is not released it is going to cause inconvenience to both the families. On these grounds he prayed to allow both the Criminal Revision Petitions and to set aside the order passed by the trial Court. 4. On these grounds he prayed to allow both the Criminal Revision Petitions and to set aside the order passed by the trial Court. 4. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutors vehemently argued and submitted that the said amount is the amount of the accused and as per the accounts furnished by the Investigating Agency, it is disproportionate to known source of income. They further submitted that at the time when the said amount has been kept, the petitioners were students and they were not earning members. That itself clearly goes to show that the said amount is the amount of the accused. They further submitted that in the event of proving the case, the said amount has to be confiscated to the State and if the amount is released, it is very difficult for the State to reappropriate and seize the said amount. Under the said facts and circumstances, they prays to dismiss the petitions. 5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 6. As could be seen from the records respondent police conducted a raid on the house of the accused on 7.9.2016 and seized some original documents and other articles along with gold and silver and when he seized the accounts of the present petitioners/applicants who are the daughters of accused, it is noticed that an amount of Rs. 5,22,994/-, Rs. 2,24,361/-, Rs. 27,514/-, Rs. 1,71,000/-, in all Rs. 9,45,869/- stands in the name of Smt. V.S. Swathi, in Criminal Revision Petition No.1088/2018 and Rs. 3,75,037/-, Rs. 71,152/-, Rs. 4,50,000/-, Rs. 1,71,000/-, in all Rs. 10,67,189/- stands in the name of Miss. V.S. Chandana, petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No.1090/2018. 7. Whether the said amount standing in the name of the petitioners is accumulation of the assets of accused is a matter which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the marriage of the petitioner Miss. Chandana has been fixed and for the purpose of meeting out the marriage expenses, they require the said amount. Though the said amount is liable to be seized, I am of the considered opinion that if adequate security/indemnity bond if it is taken in accordance with law, then it is going to meet the ends of justice. Chandana has been fixed and for the purpose of meeting out the marriage expenses, they require the said amount. Though the said amount is liable to be seized, I am of the considered opinion that if adequate security/indemnity bond if it is taken in accordance with law, then it is going to meet the ends of justice. It is well settled principles of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in, (2003) AIR SC 638 it has been observed that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicle or other articles at the police station or in the lockers, immediate steps are to be taken for the purpose of disposal of the seized articles by taking adequate securities. 8. Keeping in view the said ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court without looking into this aspect has passed the impugned order. 9. As could be seen from the order of the trial Court, the investigation is still under progress and at this stage if the amount is ordered to be released, it is going to hamper the trial, that is the matter which has to be considered and appreciated at the time of trial. 10. During the course of argument it is submitted that the amount which has been mentioned above standing in the name of the petitioners/applicants is not in dispute and it is also not going to be disputed during the course of trial. The only question which has to be decided by the Court below is that whether the said amount pertains to the accused and he has invested in the name of the petitioners/applicants in acquisition of disproportionate income acquired by him, that is kept open to the trial Court to consider that aspect. I feel that if by taking adequate security if the said amount is released, it is going to meet the ends of justice. 11. In the light of the discussion held by me above, both the petitions are allowed and the order dated 6.7.2017 is set aside and the application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. is consequently allowed and the amount in deposit to the tune of Rs. 9,45,869/- standing in the name of Smt. V.S. Swathi and Rs. 11. In the light of the discussion held by me above, both the petitions are allowed and the order dated 6.7.2017 is set aside and the application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. is consequently allowed and the amount in deposit to the tune of Rs. 9,45,869/- standing in the name of Smt. V.S. Swathi and Rs. 10,67,189/- standing in the name of Miss. V.S. Chandana are ordered to be released with following conditions: (i) The petitioners/applicants shall execute indemnity bond for a sum of Rs. 9,45,869/-, and Rs. 10,67,189/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court with an undertaking that in the event if it is established in the trial that the said amount are the part of the disproportion amount of accused they will indemnify the said amount. (ii) If any other amount is there in deposit in the name of the petitioners/applicants, the same cannot be released until and unless the order of the Court. (iii) Trial Court has to get the photographs of the receipt of the said amount and an affidavit to the effect that they will not object those copies during trial. With the above observations, the petitions are disposed of.