JUDGMENT K Somashekar, J. - This petition is filed challenging the order of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Crl.RP.No.151/2019 dated 16.10.2019, confirming the order passed by the Court of the I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Chitradurga in Cr.No.238/2019 dated 1.8.2019 by rejecting the application filed under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. to release the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-50/Y-7973. Hence, this petition is preferred seeking to set aside both the above said orders and thereby for a direction to the respondent / State to release the seized vehicle bearing No.KA-50/Y-7973, under P.F.No.121/2019 for the grounds urged in the petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the State who appear through video conferencing. 3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The case in Cr.No.238/2019 came to be registered by the Chitradurga Rural Police against the petitioner herein for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. During the course of investigation, the I.O. had seized the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 50/Y-7973 which belonged to the petitioner namely Dyamanna and subjected the same under P.F.No.121/2019 as Item No.2. The same is reflected from the material available on record. The petitioner being the owner of the said motor cycle, filed an application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. seeking for interim custody of the said motor cycle. However, the I Addl. Civil Judge, Chitradurga, by order dated 01.08.2019, rejected the said application on the ground that Insurance policy covering third party risks was not produced by the petitioner / owner of the vehicle. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the petitioner filed a revision petition in Cr.R.P.No.151/2019 before the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. However, the said revision petition as well came to be rejected by order dated 16.10.2019, thus confirming the order of I Addl. Civil Judge, Chitradurga. It is these orders which are under challenge in this petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order passed by Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court are unreasonable and require to be set-aside. Civil Judge, Chitradurga. It is these orders which are under challenge in this petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order passed by Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court are unreasonable and require to be set-aside. The vehicle which has been seized in the matter is very much necessary for the day-to-day activities of the petitioner and if the said motor cycle is kept in the police station by exposing the same to sunlight and rain and natural elements, its machinery would get rusted and its value will certainly be diminished. He further contends that the petitioner's vehicle is not involved in any offence as contended by the prosecution at all. He prays that the aforesaid circumstances be taken into consideration and the orders passed by both the courts below be set aside and thereby the motor cycle be released to the petitioner subject to imposing certain conditions. The counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any terms and conditions to be imposed by this court while allowing this petition. Thus he prays for allowing the present petition for the grounds urged therein. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP for the State has taken me through the involvement of the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-50/Y-7973 which is alleged to have been seized by the I.O. and subjected to P.F.No.121/2019, whereby this motor cycle has been involved in Cr.No.238/2019 relating to offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. Therefore, he contends that the said motor cycle would be required to the Investigating Agency to produce the same before Trial Court for identification purpose by the witnesses cited in the charge-sheet in Cr.No.238/2019. If the said motor cycle is released in favour of the petitioner who is the owner, certainly it is possible that he may change its colour and identification and it would become difficult to prove the guilt of the accused or the fact of the said motor cycle having been involved in an accident. Further, it could not be produced before the Trial Court where the accused are required to face trial. On these grounds, the learned HCGP for the State seeks for dismissal of this petition filed by the petitioner by confirming the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court. 6. Further, it could not be produced before the Trial Court where the accused are required to face trial. On these grounds, the learned HCGP for the State seeks for dismissal of this petition filed by the petitioner by confirming the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court. 6. On a careful consideration of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the State, it is seen that the case in Cr.No.238/2019 came to be registered by the Chitradurga Rural Police against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. During the course of investigation, the I.O. had seized the petitioner's motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-50/Y-7973, be being the owner of the same and subjected in P.F.No.121/2019 as Item No.2. Though the petitioner filed an application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. seeking for interim custody of the said motor cycle, the I Addl. Civil Judge, Chitradurga, by order dated 01.08.2019, rejected the said application. The Revision petition in Cr.R.P.No.151/2019 filed before the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga also came to be rejected confirming the order dated 1.8.2019. 7. The application under Section 457 came to be rejected on the ground that as on the date of the accident and alleged involvement of the motor cycle, there was no Insurance Policy standing in the name of the owner of the motor cycle. Subsequently, insurance was obtained by the owner of the said motor cycle, which was subjected to P.F. The aforesaid motor cycle is kept in the premises of the police station by exposing the same to air, sunlight and rain, which would diminish its value. If this petition is not allowed and if further the said motor cycle is kept exposed for a longer period, the vehicle would certainly deteriorate and the value of the motor cycle would also further diminish. Whether the accused had committed the offence by using the vehicle of the petitioner is a matter of trial. Further, whether the vehicle was covered with Insurance Policy as on the date of the alleged incident is also a matter of trial. Whether the accused had committed the offence by using the vehicle of the petitioner is a matter of trial. Further, whether the vehicle was covered with Insurance Policy as on the date of the alleged incident is also a matter of trial. The apprehension of the learned HCGP for the State that if the motor cycle is released in favour of the petitioner / owner of the motor cycle, it would cause difficulty in identifying the vehicle during facing of trial by the accused and if the petitioner alienates the motor cycle, certainly it affects the case of the prosecution which are major factors on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. But the said apprehension of the learned HCGP could be met by imposing certain suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution in order to identify the said motor cycle during the course of trial for the purpose of identification by the witnesses. Therefore, it is said that the grounds urged in this petition are found to be justifiable. Consequently, this petition deserves to be allowed and the orders of the Trial Court and the Revisional Court require to be set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed and the order dated 1.8.2019 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Chitradurga as well as the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga are hereby set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the petitioner / applicant under Section 457 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed and the motor cycle bearing No.KA-50/Y- 7973 subjected under P.F.No.121/2019 is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner, however, subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner / applicant shall execute an Indemnity bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with likesum surety, to the satisfaction of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, in Cr.No.238/2019. ii) The petitioner / applicant shall not alienate the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-50/Y-7973, pending disposal of the entire case. iii) The petitioner / applicant shall not change the identity and colour of the aforesaid motor cycle. iv) The petitioner / applicant is directed to produce the said motor cycle whenever he is directed by the Trial Court during the course of trial in Cr.No.238/2019 for identification.