JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Present revision has been filed against order dated 2.4.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti, by which application of revisionist for release of 4 bulls in Case Crime No. 54 of 2005 under Sections 3, 5, 8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, P.S. Khalilabad, Basti has been rejected. 2. In lower Court applicant (present revisionist) moved application with averment that police has detained his 4 bulls, which may be released in his favour. 3. Learned CJM rejected application for release of animals on ground that said bulls are case property and their age was not determined, so in light of rulings of Apex Court they cannot be released. Learned Magistrate had also directed the Supurdagi of animals to Gaushala. Aggrieved by this impugned order applicant had preferred present revision. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and gone through the records of original case and legal position. Animals in question had been seized at time of their transportation. Revisionist claims to be their owner, and had filed some evidences in that regard. It is not the prosecution case that those animals are stolen property, or involved in any other crime, or belong to any other person. No other person had placed his claim over them. By mere transportation it cannot be presumed that animals were being carried out for slaughtering. In ruling Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujrat, 2003 SCC (Cri) 1943, Hon’ble Apex Court had held that it is of no use to keep articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In such cases, the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 Cr.PC at the earliest. Court below had rejected the release application treating it to be case property. Most of the reasons given in impugned order for refusal of release are hypothetical and without any basis. In light of the legal position discussed in above mentioned ruling impugned order is found legally not maintainable. Therefore, revision succeeds, and is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.4.2005 is set aside. ——————