HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4313 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This criminal revision is directed against order dated 24.7.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba in Misc. Case No. Nil/ 2025, Computer Application No. 1093 of 2025 whereby release application for vehicle no. UP95H-2775 (Cruiser) under Section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act, P.S.- A.R.T.O. Mahoba, District Mahobaa has been rejected. 3. In compliance of the order dated 3.9.2025 Shri Prabal Pratap Singh, Superintendent of Police, Mahoba is present in person before the Court and the Court takes notice of the fact that Shri Daya Shankar, ARTO, Mahoba is also present. 4. An affidavit is filed today by Shri Prabal Pratap Singh, Superintendent of Police, Mahoba wherein it has been explained that as soon as the order of this Court was received in the S.P. office, the said order was sent to ARTO, Mahoba immediately who was actually responsible to send proper report to the court. Since the deponent is not a party to this proceedings, further reminder was also sent to the ARTO, Mahoba at his end. 5. On query, Shri Daya Shankar, ARTO made oral submissions before this court that after receiving the order passed by this Court from S.P. Mahoba he immediately took proper steps for the compliance of the order passed by this Court and now the compliance of the order of this Court has been properly made at his end. He has tendered his unconditional apology of this Court and the same has been furnished by Shri Shri Prabal Pratap Singh, Superintendent of Police, Mahoba as well as both the officers are directed to be vigilant and cautious when they are expected from a Court of law to make Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sadhana Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shan Mohammad .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) compliance of its order within stipulated time and in a proper manner. 6. Personal presence of Shri Prabal Pratap Singh, Superintendent of Police, Mahoba is exempted unless ordered otherwise. Shri Daya Shankar, ARTO is also not required to this Court unless called for. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that challan of the vehicle no. UP95H-2775 (Cruiser) which belongs to the revisionist was made for over loading the vehicle whereas in the copy of the registration certificate of the aforesaid vehicle no. UP95H-2775 (Cruiser) it is mentioned that a total of 14 persons may travel in the said vehicle and it is registered in the name of Shan Mohammad, the present revisionist and the registration certificate, insurance and other relevant documents relating to the vehicle are also valid. It is further submitted that the aforesaid vehicle has been given by him in the charge of his nephew because he is mostly busy in some business dealings and the authority letter executed in a notorial stamp is already furnished on record which is dated 23.7.2022. It is further submitted that the accused in his case has already been granted bail by the Court and the present revisionist is not an accused or party to the proceedings before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba. Referring to aforesaid facts as well as contents of F.I.R. it is submitted that detention of the vehicle for a long time at the police station is likely to diminish its value and ultimately the vehicle may become junk. 8. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2003 (1) JIC 615 (SC), it is submitted that the Apex Court has 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." It is lastly submitted that revisionist is willing to fulfill all conditions imposed upon him for release of the vehicle in question. 9. On the other hand, leaned AGA opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the trial court while rejecting the release application has not committed any illegality. Impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 10. I have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully. 11. The revisionist is not named in the F.I.R.. He is the owner of the vehicle in question. Court below was not justified in rejecting the application for release CRLR No. 4313 of 2025 2 of the vehicle in question in favour of its registered owner. By passage of time, the vehicle is likely to become junk which would serve no fruitful purpose. In these circumstances, the criminal revision deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 24.7.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba in Misc. Case No. Nil/ 2025, Computer Application No. 1093 of 2025 is set-aside. The concerned Magistrate is directed to release the aforesaid vehicle in favour of its registered owner on furnishing adequate security to his satisfaction by imposing reasonable conditions upon the revisionist. September 18, 2025 Fhd CRLR No. 4313 of 2025 3 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad