Anil Kumar Sinha, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties concerned.

2. The present writ application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 09.09.2019, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arwal, in Mahendia Police Station Case No. 55 of 2018, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition, dated 27.07.2019, filed by the petitioner for release of his Bolero vehicle, bearing Registration No. BR-02T-8653 and further for quashing the order, dated 04.01.2020, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jehanabad, in Revision Case No. 54 of 2019, by which the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the order dated 09.09.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate with liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for release of the vehicle within a period of two months if the trial of the case is not concluded. The petitioner again, on 05.03.2020, filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arwal for release of his vehicle, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order, dated 01.07.2020, dismissed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that his application is not maintainable in the present situation. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of direction for release of the said Bolero vehicle, which is kept in open at Mehandia Police Station and the said vehicle, in question, was seized in connection with Mehandia Police Station Case No. 55 of 2018 registered for the offences under Sections 379 of 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ application is that First Information Report was lodged by one Nishant Kumar, Supervisor of Jio Company, alleging therein that six to seven accused persons came on two vehicles, one pickup van and another Bolero vehicle and have taken away batteries installed in different towers within Mendiya Police Station. On the basis of the information given by the informant, the police apprehended the said two vehicles and recovered altogether 64 batteries, loaded therein, both vehicles were seized and the petitioner along with six other co-accused persons who were sitting in the vehicles were arrested.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the owner of the seized Bolero vehicle, bearing Registration No. BR-02T-8653, and has filed an application on 27.07.2019 for release of the vehicle, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 09.09.2019, rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of his vehicle on the ground that he is accused in this case and charge sheet has already been submitted against him. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a revision application bearing Criminal Revision No. 54 of 2019 before the learned Sessions Judge, Jehanabad, who by order, dated 04.01.2020, has dismissed the revision application with liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for release of his vehicle if the trial of the case is not concluded within a period of two months.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the pick-up van has already been released in favour of the owner of the said vehicle, namely, Amrendra Kumar, vide order, dated 19.11.2018, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arwal. The petitioner again, on 05.03.2020, filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arwal for release of his vehicle, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order, dated 01.07.2020, dismissed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that his application is not maintainable in the present situation. He further submits that the vehicle has been kept in open place since 2018 and the same is likely to be damaged due to weather and other external forces.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposing the prayer of the petitioner submits that petitioner is named accused persons in Mahendia Police Station Case No. 55 of 2018 and he was arrested from the said vehicle and stolen batteries were also recovered from the said vehicle. Accordingly, t