Order This criminal revision is directed against the orders dated 21.7.2010 and 6.9.2010 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar in Miscellaneous Case No. 03/10, by which the said court forfeited the indemnity bond of Rs. 40,000/-, which was executed by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed for the release of his motorcycle bearing Registration No. JH01AA-6911. It was alleged that the said motorcycle was involved in a road dacoity arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No. 91/2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 423/09. 2. Prosecution story in short was that an FIR was lodged against the son of the petitioner and other accused persons for the alleged offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that on 22.7.2009 the accused Vijay Turi along with other accused persons snatched the Hero Honda motorcycle of the informant. The son of the petitioner Vijay Turi was arrested during investigation, who made confession before the police that the motorcycle of his father bearing Registration No. JH01AA-6911 was used in commission of the said offence. Accused Vijay Turi was put on trial along with other accused persons after framing of charge under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted. 3. It would be relevant to mention that during the pendency of the Sessions Trial, the motorcycle of the petitioner, who was not an accused in the said case, was released in his favour on executing indemnity bond of Rs.40,000/-. After the judgment of conviction was recorded under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Vijay Turi. the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar by the order dated 21.7.2010 directed the petitioner to produce the motorcycle in the court on 18.8.2010, failing to which it was cautioned that necessary action would be taken against him for realization of the forfeited amount of the indemnity bond. Pursuant to such direction, the petitioner Chauthi Turi @ Chauthiya Turi produced his motorcycle No. JH01AA-6911 in the court and submitted that he wanted to prefer a revision for the release of his • motorcycle. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar by order dated 6.9.2010 stated that the amount of indemnity bond of Rs. 40,000/- was forfeited took over the custody of the motorcycle and handed it over to the officer-in-charge of Latehar police station for keeping it in the safe custody of the malkhana. 4. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar by order dated 6.9.2010 stated that the amount of indemnity bond of Rs. 40,000/- was forfeited took over the custody of the motorcycle and handed it over to the officer-in-charge of Latehar police station for keeping it in the safe custody of the malkhana. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though there was no evidence at all on the record that the said motorcycle of the petitioner was used for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and only by conviction of the son of the petitioner Vijay Turi under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code would not entail the use of the motorcycle of the petitioner so as to warrant forfeiture of the amount of indemnity bond to the tune of Rs.40,000/- and also for seizure of the motorcycle which was sent in the malkhana of the police station in the custody of the officer-in-charge. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that the son of the petitioner Vijay Turi has preferred Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 678/ 2010 before this Court and he has been admitted to bail during pendency of the appeal. During trial no witness stated that the said motorcycle was used in commission of the said offence and there was no material except the confessional statement of the appellant-Vijay Turi that he had used the said motorcycle, that too, before the police and as such, there was no legal evidence of the use of the said motorcycle of the petitioner by Vijay Turi and hence, appropriate order may be passed with the direction for the release of the motorcycle in favour of the petitioner, who was not an accused in this case. 6. Heard Mr. Md. Hatim, the learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the State Opposite Party, who has fairly conceded that the order recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was erroneous. 7. In the facts and circumstances, there appears substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that recourse adopted by the Trial Judge for the seizure of motorcycle and forfeiture of indemnity bond executed by the petitioner for the release of his motorcycle No. JH01AA-6911 during trial was contrary to the procedure laid down. 7. In the facts and circumstances, there appears substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that recourse adopted by the Trial Judge for the seizure of motorcycle and forfeiture of indemnity bond executed by the petitioner for the release of his motorcycle No. JH01AA-6911 during trial was contrary to the procedure laid down. In the circumstances, motorcycle bearing Registration No. JH01AA-6911 is directed to be released in favour of the petitioner Chauthi Turi @ Chauthiya Turi on production of the registration book, insurance paper and other relevant documents to the satisfaction of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar in Miscellaneous Case No. 03/10; arising out of Sessions Trial No.23/10, however, with the direction that the petitioner would not alienate his motorcycle without prior permission of the Court. The orders impugned dated 21.7.2010 and 6.9.2010 are set aside. 8. This criminal revision is allowed with the aforesaid observation.