G.S.N.TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) This writ peti tion is being finally disposed of and dis missed.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. As regards the Scooter in question, the petitioner No. 1 does not claim its ownership but petitioner No. 2 claims its ownership. From the order dated 22-2-97, passed by the learned trial Judge, it ap pears that the duplicate registration certifi cate was not produced before him. It means that had the duplicate registration certificate been produced before him. He would have ordered for the return of the scooter to the petitioner No. 2. That has not been done. The petitioner No. 2 is di rected to go back to the court concerned and to show the documents regarding the ownership of the disputed scooter. The learned trial Court will be at liberty to al low his application for release, if he deems proper on merits of the case. This way, the prayer of the peti tioner No. 2 Syed Tahir Husain Abidi is allowed to this extent only that he shall go before the learned trial court and produce the documents of his ownership for his re consideration.
(3.) NOW coming to the petitioner No. 1 Bhagirathi Pandey, the items Nos. 1 to 16 (Annexure 1 to this petition), which has been further amplified by the contents of the attache recovered, i. e. upto the Red Ink portion at page 15, signed and dated by me, alone shall be released in favour of petitioner No. 1 aforesaid after taking ade quate security from him with the condition to produce the same as and when required, by the court concerned, because those items are of daily use by the men and women of the respective family members to which the petitioner belongs. As regards the items after this se rial No. 16 aforesaid, the prayer for release is rejected. It shall be dealt with after the trial has closed and under the orders of the court.;