- (1.) SHIV Charan, J. The present application has been moved under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for setting aside/modification of the judgement and order dated 10. 10. 2007 passed bya. S. J. Court No. 2 Fatehpur in Crl. Case No. 221 of 2007. By this judgement and order of the Magistrate the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Magistrate dated 27. 8. 2007 but conditional order was passed for release of the vehicle.
(2.) THE perusal of the facts of the case shows that vehicle Tata Sumo No. UP-78t 9592 was seized in case Crime No. 173 of 2007 under Section 3/5-A/8 Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act PS. Kalyanpur District Fatehpur. This applicant Badaruddin moved an application before the trial Court for release of this vehicle. But trial Court rejected this application of the applicant. Being aggrieved from this order of the Magistrate applicant filed a criminal revision and the revisional Court set aside the order of the Magistrate and it was ordered that the vehicle in question shall be released in favour of the applicant/revisionist on its satisfying the trial Court on his ownership, registration papers before the trial Court. It was further directed that a sum of Rs. 15, 000/- shall be deposited in cash and a personal bond of Rs. 50, 000/- and one surety bond of Rs. 20, 000/- shall be executed and undertaking shall be furnished. That revisionist shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court. The main grievance of the applicant is regarding directing the applicant for depositing of a sum of Rs. 15, 000/- in cash and in this connection applicant's Counsel argued that the order to this affect is patiently illegal. That Court was not justified in directing the applicant to deposit Rs. 15, 000/- cash and it has also not been clear that whether this amount of Rs.-15, 000/- was required to be deposited as security or for which purpose. Because besides directing depositing a sum of Rs. 15, 000/- further direction has been given to furnish personal bond of Rs. 50, 000/and one surety of Rs. 20, 000/ -. The applicant's Counsel also cited 1993 (30) SCC 697, Sudesh Kumar Sharma v. State of U. P. ln this judgement this Court set aside the order of the Magistrate by which for release of the property the applicant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 77, 285/- in cash and directed that property will be released in favour of the applicant on furnishing security other than cash or bank guarantee. The applicant's Counsel cited some other orders of this Court. Learned AGA opposed the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant.
(3.) I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. It is a fact that the revisional Court set aside the-order of the trial Court by which application for release was rejected. But a condition, was imposed that vehicle shall be released in favour of the applicant providedly on satisfying the trial Court regarding ownership by furnishing registration paper and also depositing Rs. 15, 000/- cash and executing personal bond of Rs. 50, 000/, one surety of Rs. 20, 000/ -. It appears justified that there is no basis of the revisional Court for directing the applicant for depositing Rs, 15, 000/- in cash either cash security would be obtained. But in the present case besides personal bond and surety bond, Rs. 15, 000/- also ordered to be deposited. It has not been made clear that for what purpose a sum of Rs. 15, 000/- was to be deposited. I have considered all other contents in my opinion the other conditions appear justified but the condition of directing the applicant for depositing Rs. 15, 000/-appears uncalled for and unjustified. In my opinion it will be just and proper to modify the order of revisional Court dated 10. 10. 2007 regarding depositing Rs. 15, 000/ -. The application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is allowed partly and the order of the Sessions Judge dated 10. 10. 2007 is modified to this extent that the applicant will not deposit a sum of Rs. 15, 000/in cash and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. The vehicle shall be released in favour of the applicant after satisfying the Court regarding ownership and furnishing personal bond and surety bond as directed by the Sessions Judge. .;