AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable with consent of the parties and heard finally.
By way of this petition, petitioner takes an exception to the order dated 17.02.2018 passed by JMFC, Malshiras, in Criminal Misc. Application No.
63 of 2018 below ExhibitÂ1 and order dated 02.01.2019 passed Additional Sessions Judge, Malshiras in Criminal Revision Application No. 46 of 2018.
On 19.01.2018, the petitioner has filed the application for return of property i.e. Tractor and trolley. The Trial Court allowed the application but
directed to furnish bank guaranty of Rs. 7 Lakh. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the Criminal Revision Application challenging the order of JMFC,
Malshiras. On 02.01.2019, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malshiras dismissed the Revision application filed by the petitioner. Hence this writ
petition.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that, petitioner is ready to furnish personal bond, and the petitioner is not in a position to give
bank guaranty of Rs. 7 Lakh for release of vehicle i.e. Tractor. It is submitted that, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofS tate of Kerala Vs. A.A.
Ali decided on 14th August 2018, has taken a view that it is not necessary to furnish bank guaranty for releasing the vehicle.
On the other hand, learned APP appearing for respondent submits that, learned JMFC has rightly asked the petitioner to furnish bank guaranty of
Rs. 7 Lakh for releasing the vehicle.
Upon appreciating rival contentions and perusal of the impugned orders passed by JMFC, Malshiras and also Revisional Court, it appears that an
onerous condition of furnishing bank guaranty of Rs. 7 Lakh is imposed for releasing of the Tractor (bearing registration No. MHÂ13 JÂ6803).
Learned Magistrate as well as the Sessions Court ought to have kept in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 638, while dealing with the application filed under section 451 of Code of
Criminal Procedure for releasing the vehicle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala (supra) has also upheld the order passed by
the High court holding that, the bank guaranty for alleged loss need not be insisted for releasing vehicle involved in the process.
It is true that in the present case the said Tractor was not insured, however, keeping the said vehicle idle for considerable period is of no use. In that
view of the matter and since the petitioner is ready to furnish personal bond instead of bank guaranty, the impugned order insisting for furnishing bank
guaranty of Rs. 7 Lakhs for release of aforesaid vehicle stands quashed and set aside and instead, learned JMFC, Malshiras, on accepting the
Suprutnama/Personal bond of the petitioner shall order to release the vehicle as expeditiously as possible, however, within two weeks from receipt of
the order passed by this Court.
With the above observations, writ petition stands disposed of. Rule made absolute in above terms.