JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, a criminal case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.358 dated 18.9.2009, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar, in which, a Hyundai Verna Car, which was hypothecated with the petitioner-HDFC Bank Limited (for short “the petitioner-bank”) was taken into possession by the police as a case property. 2. In pursuance of the application filed by the petitioner-bank, the Car in question was released on superdari by the Area Magistrate, by virtue of impugned order dated 18.3.2011 (Annexure P1), which is as follows:- “Pursuant to the notice, accused Jaspreet Singh has come present. He had suffered the statement that he is not in possession of any proof regarding the ownership of Hyundai Verna Car and he has no objection, if the said car is ordered to be released to HDFC Bank. Accordingly, in view of the statement suffered by the accused and in view of the report of the police, The Hyundai Verna Car is ordered to be released on sapurdari to the HDFC Bank through its attorney Arun Kumar Ozas, on furnishing the sapurdari bonds in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, with one surety in the like amount thereby undertaking that applicant will produce the vehicle on each and every date of hearing and will not change the color and will not sell the said vehicle. Release warrants be issued, subject to furnishing of sapurdari bonds.” 3. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P1), the revision petition filed by the petitioner-bank was dismissed as well, by the revisional Court, by means of impugned judgment dated 4.2.2012 (Annexure P2). 4. The petitioner-bank still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, to challenge the impugned orders (Annexures P1 & P2), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-bank, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 6. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-bank, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 6. As is evident from the record, that in the wake of application moved by the petitioner-bank, the Magistrate released the Car in question on superdari on its furnishing sapurdari/surety bonds, thereby undertaking to produce the vehicle on each and every date of hearing and not to change the colour and ownership of the car. The revision petition filed by the petitioner bank, assailing the order to furnish the sapurdari/surety bonds, was dismissed as well, by the revisional Court, by way of impugned order (Annexure P2). The learned counsel has miserably failed to point out any reason/ground, muchless cogent, to interfere in the impugned orders passed in its favour in this relevant connection. 7. Meaning thereby, both the Courts below have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant direction. Such impugned orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, unless and until, the same are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-bank, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P1 & P2) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner-Bank. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such. ---------0.B.S.0------------