Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 12.1.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No. 1519 of 2010 (State of U.P. v. Sanjiv and others) under Sections 395, 397 IPC and 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, P.S. Titavi, Distt. Muzaffar Nagar whereby, the application of the revisionist for release of motor-cycle No. UP12K 0839 was rejected on the ground that the revisionist was involved in the case and the motor-cycle was used in the commission of the crime and if the vehicle was released, the accused may dispose it of.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the release of the vehicle cannot be refused on the ground that it was a case property. The Court can always direct that the vehicle be produced in Court as and when directed. By keeping the vehicle at the police station for a long time, may diminish its value and ultimately the vehicle may become junk.

4. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 (1) JIC 615 (SC), the Apex Court held that

“In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.”

5. In view of the decision of the Apex Court, learned Addl. Sessions Judge should not have rejected the application for release. The impugned order is illegal and is liable to be said aside.

Revision is allowed.

Impugned order dated 12.1.2011 is set-aside.

Learned Addl. Sesions Judge is directed to release the aforesaid motor-cycle in favour of its registered owner on furnishing adequate security to its satisfaction subject to the condition that during pendency of the case, the revisionist shall not transfer the vehicle to any person in any manner and he shall produce the vehicle in Court at his own expenses as and when directed by the Court