1 S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.405/2006 Smt. Kalawati Devi v. Union of India Date of Order :: 4th January, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. J.S.Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr. Panney Singh, for the respondent. .... On 24.6.2004, Central Bureau of Intelligence officials searched the house No.7A/1, Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar owned by Shri B.L.Sahu and seized three fixed deposit receipts, details of those are as follows:- S.No. Name of the Bank FDR No. Original Value in rupees ------------------------------------------------------ 1. SBBJ 155436 38,600/- 2. SBBJ 155437 38,600/- 3. SBBJ 155438 38,600/- ------------------------------------------------------ The fixed deposit receipts referred above were in the name of the petitioner as well as of Shri B.L.Sahu. An application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. was submitted on behalf of the petitioner seeking release of the above mentioned FDRs but that came to be rejected by order dated 18.2.2006, hence this revision petition is preferred. 2 Learned Special Judge, CBI, Jodhpur, while rejecting the application held that the fixed deposit receipts were in the name of Brijlal Sahu also, therefore, those cannot be ordered to be released. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing validity of the order dated 18.2.2006 has contended that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the money stagnated as the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety in event of release of maturity value of the FDRs concerned. It is also asserted that the FDRs aforesaid are not required for the purpose of evidence. Per contra, the stand of learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Intelligence is that no error was committed by the court below while refusing to release the FDRs as the same are recorded in the name of accused Shri B.L.Sahu. I have considered the rival contentions. No doubt that the FDRs in question are in joint name of the petitioner as well as of Shri B.L.Sahu, the accused. However, when the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish adequate security to protect the matured and enhanced value of the FDRs, I do not find any just reason to keep the FDRs stagnated. 3 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to accept this revision petition and also the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 457 Cr.P.C. with a direction to deliver the fixed deposit receipts in question (reference of those are given in the application itself) to the petitioner subject to the condition that she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs.40,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court. The sureties desired to be furnished must be verified by competent revenue officer. Before delivering the original fixed deposit receipts to the petitioner three photocopies of each FDR signed by the petitioner on back and also the Presiding Officer of the trial court be kept on record. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.