ORDER : Petitioners being accused in Crime No.95/2019 registered by Chikkamagaluru Town Police for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of IPC, Section 66 of Information Technology Act, and under Sections 21 & 22 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Ordinance 2019, are invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 05.10.2019 rendered by the learned CJM, Chikkamagaluru whereby their applications filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.PC, 1973 seeking release of their subject vehicles has been negatived; this apart, their bank accounts too have been ordered to be frozen. 2. After service of notice, the learned HCGP having entered appearance for the first respondent-State vehemently opposes the petition contending that: law requires custody of the subject vehicles being with the Police, regard being had to the nature of offence alleged; the learned Magistrate of the Court below having considered all aspects of the matter, has made discretionary order refusing to deliver custody of the subject vehicles to the petitioners herein; and lastly, it is unsafe to place the vehicles in the custody of the offenders, who may use the same for commission of other offences. 3. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to grant custody of the subject vehicles to the petitioner–registered owners for the following reasons and subject to conditions herein after stipulated: (a) It is a matter of common knowledge that the vehicles should not be kept unplyed for long, lest their engines deteriorate during the idle period; secondly the vehicles are owned by the registered owners for the purpose of putting them to regular use; unnecessarily authorities retaining the custody of the vehicles would deprive the registered owners of their right to use the same and of keeping them roadworthy; (b) common sense tells us that it is difficult for the Police to preserve the vehicles in their original condition since they having been parked outside are ordinarily exposed to seasonal wear, more particularly sunheat and rains; no material is placed to show that they are parked in a safe precinct having protection against weather; (c) theft of or damage to the valuable parts of the vehicles during the custody of the police/authorities also cannot be ruled out; further, in such circumstance, a citizen will not have a legal remedy since seizure & custody of the vehicles involved in offences is a matter of sovereign power vide Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1965 (1) SCR 375 and such other decisions of the Apex Court; and, (d) the reasoning of the court below that all further criminal proceedings are stayed by this court and therefore, release cannot be sought for, is bit difficult to appreciate; similarly, lower court is not justified in saying that once vehicles are released, they cannot be retrieved from the accused; this apart, the petitioners are ready and willing to produce the subject vehicles whenever either Police or Authorities or the Court below require for inspection or otherwise; 4. The above apart, in Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda vs State of Mysore, (2002) 10 SCC 283 at para 4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed: “4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. 5. The Apex Court in SunderbhaI Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 has laid down the broad guidelines for exercising discretion u/s 451 of Cr.P.C when release of seized vehicles/articles is sought for; at para 7, it is observed as under: “In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: 1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation. 2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the properly in detail; and 4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.” 6. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the properly in detail; and 4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.” 6. It needs to be borne in mind that the ownership of property i.e., the vehicles here is nothing but a bundle of rights of which right to use is one; when right to property is guaranteed by Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the power of seizure & custody of the property of a citizen should be judiciously exercised by the authorities; in a Welfare Society governed by rule of law the existence of power per se does not justify it’s exercise to the prejudice of persons; however, this is not to say that in no case seizure of property and its custody should be resorted to; thrust of the matter is that, seizure and retention of the custody of the property/vehicles should be co-terminus with the genuine requirement; all these aspects have not been duly adverted to by the Judge of the court below. 7. Going by the pleadings of the petitioners and the submission of their counsel, no grievance is made against the direction for freezing of their bank accounts, as rightly submitted by learned HCGP; he is also justified in adding that even otherwise, no case can be made out for invalidating such a direction, either; however, learned HCGP is not right in seeking to sustain other part of the impugned order on the ground that it is a product of exercise of discretion by the court below; court has discretion in the matters of this kind, is not disputable; however, discretion means according to reason & justice; reasons mentioned by the court below now having been found fault with, and the impugned order being bereft of justice, can not be sustained. 8. 8. In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds in part; the impugned order except to the extent of freezing of bank accounts of the petitioners/accused is set aside; the subject applications filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. having been favoured, the court below shall direct release of the subject vehicles to the petitioners after ascertaining their credentials in the R.C Books and other vehicle documents and subject to following conditions: (a) the petitioners shall furnish a bank guarantee or security of property (immovable) at their option for the approximate market value of the vehicles in question and shall leave the R.C. Books with the court after retaining copies thereof; (b) the petitioners shall not alienate or encumber the subject vehicles till after and subject to outcome of the criminal proceedings; they shall preserve and maintain the subject vehicles in good condition and shall not do anything that would diminish their value and utility; (c) petitioners shall produce the said vehicles before the court or the police as and when their production is sought for either for investigation, or further investigation or trial; (d) the custody of the vehicles after being released to the petitioners shall for all purposes be treated as interim and immediate custody, the mediate custody remaining with the court below with power to recall if and when required; and, (e) it is open to the respondents to recall the custody of the vehicles if any of the above conditions are violated. The pending applications pale into insignificance since the main matter itself is disposed of.