JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Misc. Criminal Application No. 828 of 2022 in connection with S.T. Case No. 406 of 2022, arising out of Jaridih P.S. Case No. 135 of 2022 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro rejected the prayer for release of the mobile handset and vehicle seized bearing registration no.JH-09AK-3031. 3. The brief facts of the case is that Jaridih P.S. Case No. 135 of 2022 has been registered with the allegation that the petitioner abducted the informant of the case and attempted to murder him, committed theft and wrongfully confined him and assaulted him. 4. Police during the investigation of the case, seized the Station Wagon CRETA 1.6 CRDI SX bearing registration no. JH-09AK-3031, and a mobile handset of XIOMI 11 Lite NE5G mobile handset bearing IMEI No.860588055247251. 5. The petitioner filed a petition for release of the mobile handset and the vehicle in his favour. The learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro has observed that charges have been framed on 19.11.2022 and the case is fixed for evidence of prosecution witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro further observed that the petitioner is the owner of the seized material sought to be released by him and it has been further observed that the seized materials have been used by the petitioner who is the accused person of the case in the alleged occurrence hence, the prayer for release of the vehicle and the mobile handset has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after lodging of the FIR, the petitioner was taken into custody on 22.06.2022 and his mobile phone and Creta vehicle were also seized during the investigation of the case and now the investigation is complete and the petitioner has been granted regular bail so no useful purpose will be served in keeping the mobile handset and the said vehicle in question; in the custody of investigating authorities. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been observed in that case that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicles at the police station for long period and appropriate order for its release must be passed by taking appropriate bond, guarantee as well as security. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner requires the said vehicle for his personal use and if the vehicle is allowed to remain idle at the police station premises for long without any shelter and proper care, it may be subjected to wear and tear and will cause undue loss and hardships to the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner requires the mobile handset for his personal use and undertakes to produce the same before the authorities or court; as and when required. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro has committed grave illegality and perversity in rejecting the prayer for release of the said mobile handset and the vehicle. It is therefore submitted that the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Misc. Criminal Application No. 828 of 2022 in connection with S.T. Case No. 406 of 2022, arising out of Jaridih P.S. Case No. 135 of 2022 be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that since the petitioner has used the mobile handset and the vehicle in commission of the offence hence, the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro has not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer for release of the mobile handset and the vehicle. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is crystal clear that there is no material in the record to suggest that either the mobile hand set or the vehicle seized by the police was used in any manner in commission of any offence. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is crystal clear that there is no material in the record to suggest that either the mobile hand set or the vehicle seized by the police was used in any manner in commission of any offence. There is no material in the record to suggest that the evidence of any Call Detail Report or tower location of the said mobile phone used by the petitioner was collected during the investigation of the case and the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro is also silent about the same nor is there any allegation that mobile handset was used as a weapon to assault the victims of the case. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro has committed a perversity by refusing the release of the vehicle and the mobile handset in favour of the petitioner; who is undisputedly the owner of the same when the investigation of the case is already over. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts, the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Misc. Criminal Application No. 828 of 2022 in connection with S.T. Case No. 406 of 2022, arising out of Jaridih P.S. Case No. 135 of 2022 being not sustainable in law is quashed and set aside. 11. The Sessions Judge, Bokaro is directed to release the Station Wagon CRETA 1.6 CRDI SX bearing registration no. JH-09AK-3031 and a mobile handset of XIOMI 11 Lite NE5G mobile handset bearing IMEI No.860588055247251 in favour of the petitioner on the petitioner submitting an undertaking on the following terms and conditions: i. The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond of Rs.12,00,000/-with two solvent sureties with the undertaking that the petitioner shall produce the vehicle and the mobile handset as, when and where directed by the court. ii. The petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicle and the mobile handset during the pendency of the case nor allow anybody else than him to ride the vehicle or use the mobile hand set. iii. The petitioner shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicle and the mobile handset in any manner during the pendency of the case. iv. iii. The petitioner shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicle and the mobile handset in any manner during the pendency of the case. iv. Any other condition, if any, to be imposed by the trial court. 12. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.