ORDER : (V.G. Arun, J.) Petitioner is the owner of the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No. KL-53-C-7850 and JCB bearing registration No. KL-55-R-4836. The vehicles were seized in connection with Crime No.1042 of 2024, registered at the Nilambur Police Station for offences punishable under Section 272 of BNS and Section 120(e) of the Kerala Police Act. 2. The Crime is registered on the allegation that, at about 18.30 hrs on 16.08.2024, the Tipper Lorry was found depositing plastic waste in a vacant land, and the JCB was being used to heap the waste. The petitions seeking interim custody of the vehicles during the crime stage were dismissed. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C.No.7955 of 2024 and as per Annexure B order, the vehicles were directed to be released, subject to certain conditions, including the condition of furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only). As the petitioner was not able to comply with the condition, he could not get the vehicles released. While so, the drivers of the vehicles pleaded guilty, were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of Rs.500/-each. The case having concluded thus, petitioner again moved the trial court, this time under Section 498 of BNSS, seeking release of his vehicles. Those petitions having been dismissed by Annexures F and G orders, the Crl.M.C is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, insofar as the case itself is concluded, it is unjust and illegal to detain the vehicles any further. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence being grave in nature, the impugned orders warrant no interference. 5. There is substantial merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case having been concluded, no useful purpose is served by detaining the vehicles. As held by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [ AIR 2003 SC 638 ], it is more appropriate to release the seized vehicles rather than detaining them, leading to deterioration and loss of value. Moreover, as per Section 498(2) of BNSS, after conclusion of a criminal case, any property can be delivered to the person entitled, without any condition or on condition of executing a bond with or without sureties. Therefore, in matters of this nature, the courts should adopt a pragmatic and not restricted approach. Moreover, as per Section 498(2) of BNSS, after conclusion of a criminal case, any property can be delivered to the person entitled, without any condition or on condition of executing a bond with or without sureties. Therefore, in matters of this nature, the courts should adopt a pragmatic and not restricted approach. For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexures F and G orders are quashed and the court below is directed to release petitioner’s vehicles bearing Nos. KL-53-C-7850 and KL-55-R-4836, subject to the following conditions; i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.2 Lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) each, with two solvent sureties for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court below. ii) Petitioner shall submit notarized copies of the registration certificate and other documents pertaining to the vehicles. iii) The petitioner shall file an affidavit, undertaking to produce and restore the vehicles to the custody of the court, if so warranted.