DEEPAK VERMA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri Manish Dati, leamed counsel for the applicant, Shri DV Pendharkar, Deputy Government Advocate and perused the record, with the consent of the parties arguments heard on merits. ( 2 ) THE applicant has filed this revision under Section. 397/40 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 12. 5. 1995 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Jabalpur by which the applicants application for releasing the vehicle on his Supurdnama has been rejected. ( 3 ) THE applicant had purchased a Maruti Van bearing Chassis No. 987183 and Engine No. 1046632 of navy blue colour from Heera Automobiles, private Limited, Patiala on 19. 4. 1994. The applicant has filed the Invoice and sale certificate issued by the said dealer in his favour. ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that while the said vehicle was being driven from sic to Pune, it was stolen. Subsequently, it was used in commission of offence under Sections 302, 394, 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and also under Section. 3 of TADA. The Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that investigation in the matter is over. The police has also filed challan in the Sessions Court at Jabalpur and the case has now been fixed for recording the evidence. He further argued that the said vehicle, in question, is not required by the prosecution any more. An order in this regard was passed by II Joint J. M. F. C. , Sindkheda on 23. 2. 1995 forreleasing the said vehicle but at that time the said vehicle was not lodged within the territorial jurisdiction of Nardana Police Station as the said vehicle was already seized by Gorakhpur police station, at Jabalpur. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the State/non-applicant argued that the applicant is not the registered owner of the said vehicle and therefore, it is not safe to order the release of the vehicle in his favour. ( 6 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the vehicle should be directed to be released. ( 6 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the vehicle should be directed to be released. in favour of the applicant, as prima facie, he appears to be the owner of the said vehicle, which is fortified by Annexure 1 and 2, the invoice and the sale certificate, issued in favour of the applicant. It has also not been controvered by learned counsel for the State/non-Applicant that the vehicle is again required for further investigation, learned counsel for the applicant also relied on a judgment report in Kanhaiyalal v. Govt. of India,. The said judgment squarely covers the point involved in this revision. It is not disputed before me that the applicant is no more concerned with the Sessions. Trial in which the said vehicle is required. The said sessions trial is against some other accused persons. ( 7 ) IT is, therefore, directed that the vehicle bearing Chassis No. 987183 and Engine No. 1046632 (a navy blue coloured Marutit van), shall be released in favour of the applicant on his furnishing a bond in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ (Rupees two Lacs) to the satisfaction of the trial Court, concerned. It is further directed that during pendency of the sessions trial, the applicant shall not transfer, alienate or create any third party rights over the said vehicle and shall also produce the same before the trial Court as and when directed by the Court. The revision is, therefore, allowed, as mentioned above, with no order as to cost. Revision allowed. .