1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 1000 of 2011 Paramjeet Singh S/o Shri Jasveer Singh R/o Village Khamriya, P.S. Nanakmatta District Udham Singh Nagar …..…Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun 2. Shri Vishan Lal, Fair Price Shop Dealer Sunandara Kalan, Nanakmatta District Nainital ……….Respondents Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A., present for the State Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.09.2011, passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, in connection with FIR No. 83 of 2011, whereby said court has rejected the prayer of releasing camera belonging to the 2 petitioner. The revisional court (Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar) has also dismissed the revision vide order dated 27.09.2011, in criminal revision no. 186 of 2011. Said order has also been challenged. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Paramjeet Singh is accused in connection with FIR No. 83 of 2011, Police Station Nankmatta, relating to offences punishable under section 384, 506 IPC. He appears to have been arrested and released on bail. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is a reporter of T.V.24 News Channel, in District Udham Singh Nagar. It is pointed out that complainant Vishan Lal has alleged that he made some film regarding activities of the fair price shop run by the complainant and extorted money from him. 4. The only question before this Court is that whether the camera is case property which cannot be given back to the petitioner or not. It is pleaded before this Court that the 'film' could be a case property but not the camera. Apart from this, it is further pleaded that petitioner is ready to produce 3 as and when camera is required to be produced before the trial court. 5. In the circumstance, this Court is of the view that for the ends of justice the camera can be given in the supurdagi (custody) of the petitioner on his giving undertaking and a personal bond, to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned. 6. Accordingly, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is allowed. The camera seized from the petitioner shall be released in his favour on his executing a undertaking and a personal bond to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned to produce the same as and when required during enquiry or trial. However, this order shall not be applied in connection with any 'film' if seized during investigation. (Prafulla C. Pant, J. ) Parul 03.11.2011