Court No. 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 92 of 2007 Major Singh S/o Bagga Singh R/o Village Mahararjpur Khurd, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar …Applicant Vs. State of Uttaranchal .. Respondent Sri Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, for the applicant. Learned A.G.A. for the respondent. Dated: February 11, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought the relief for releasing Tractor No. U.S.A. No. 8506 Model 1974 bearing Chassis No. NXB-686386, Engine No. 634119, in his favour. Brief facts of the case are that Tractor No. U.S.A. No. 8506 is involved in case Crime No. 208 of 2006, State vs. Ramesh Chand & others, under Sections 364, 406, 120-B of I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar. The tractor after its seizure us standing in the campus of Police Station. The petitioner moved an application for release of the tractor before the Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, Haridwar. The Magistrate vide impugned order dated 8.11.2006 rejected the application observing therein that tractor in question is the case property. Thereafter, the petitioner moved second application on 16.1.2007 for release of tractor after submission of charge sheet, which has also been rejected by the Magistrate vide order dated 18.1.2007. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred revision before Sessions Judge, Haridwar and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 3.2.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned orders dated 8.11.2006, 18.1.2007 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Laksar as well as revisional order dated 3.2.2007, the petitioner preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court. Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the respondent and perused the record. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate shows that tractor in question is in the name of the petitioner-Major Singh son of Bagga Singh. Although the tractor is involved in the criminal case as stated above, as per the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, who is the owner of the tractor, is not nominated as accused in that criminal case. Respondent/State has also not disputed this factual aspect that tractor in question is in the name of the petitioner. The sole contention of the respondent is that tractor is the case property, therefore, the Magistrate has rightly rejected the application. The approach of the learned Magistrate rejecting the application for released of the tractor does not appear to be convincing merely on the ground that tractor in question is the case property. There was no justification on the part of the Magistrate to reject the application firstly when tractor in question is in the name of the petitioner, who is the registered owner of the same and secondly the petitioner is not the accused in the criminal case. Another aspect also cannot be ignored that in case tractor in question remains standing in the campus of Police Station, there is every likelihood of its deterioration. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstance, I think it would be just and proper to set aside the impugned order dated 3.2.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2007, Major vs. State as well as impugned orders dated 8.11.2006 and 18.1.2007 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Laksar in Case Crime No. 208 of 2006, State vs. Ramesh Chand & others, under Sections 364, 406, 120-B of IPC. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order dated 3.2.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2007, Major vs. State as well as impugned orders dated 8.11.2006 and 18.1.2007 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Laksar in case Crime No. 208 of 2006, State vs. Ramesh Chand & others, under Sections 364, 406, 120-B of IPC. I further direct that tractor in question be released in favour of the petitioner on furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- (Seventy Five Thousand) as well as a Bank Guarantee for the aforesaid amount. The petitioner shall also given an undertaking before the court below that as and when tractor in question shall be required in the criminal case, he will produce the same before the court concerned. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of. (B.C. Kandpal, J) SP