Ashraf Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the vehicle Scorpio bearing Registration No. CG-07-MA 5283 involved in Crime No. 03 of

2020 in an offence under Section 34 (2) of Excise Act has been seized by the Police Station, Kukdur, District Kabirdham.

The Petitioner has filed an application for release of the vehicle on Supurdnama before the District Collector Kabirdham, which was rejected.

Thereafter, he has filed CRMP No. 107 of 2021 challenging the said order of rejection. This Court, vide order dated 04.02.2021 has disposed off the

petition directing the District Collector, Kabirdham to consider the application in the light of decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 expeditiously without being prejudiced by rejection of the

application by the trial Magistrate and the Revisional Court. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 04.03.2021, the Collector, Kabirdham has allowed

the application for release of the vehicle on an interim Supurdnama in favour of the present Petitioner. The finding recorded by the Collector is

extracted below:

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order is not executed till today despite the order of interim Supurdnama passed on

16.03.2021 in favour of the Petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the State, Shri Rakesh Sahu, Deputy Government Advocate and Shri Udhaw Sharma, Government Advocate.

They would submit that the learned District Collector, Kabirdham has only demanded for a Bank Guarantee for Rs. 3 lac to be furnished by the

Petitioner alongwith the affidavit for releasing of the vehicle. The condition of equal amount of Supurdnama was clarified by the learned counsel for

the State, it means that he has to furnish the bond and in case if the vehicle is lost or destroyed or not available for examination, then he will be liable

to pay Rs. 3 lac to the State exchequer for releasing of the vehicle and no cash amount is required to be deposited by the Petitioner.

The aforesaid clarification submitted by the learned counsel for the State seems to be proper and justifiable. The order passed by the Collector

dated 16.03.2021 stands clarified to the extent that the Petitioner with Bank Guarantee of Rs.3 lac has to submit surety bond of Rs. 3 lac alongwith

the affidavit for releasing of the vehicle. In view of the said clarification, the Petitioner has to comply with the order of the Collector so that the seized

vehicle may be released to the Petitioner forthwith.

With this clarification, CRMP No. 433 of 2021 finally disposed off.