BADARUDDIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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/ -.