Haripada Sarkar vs State of Jharkhand and Another

R.K. Merathia, J.—Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for release of the truck in question, i.e., W.B. 73-3441 pending in the Confiscation Case No. 2 of 2004. He submitted that truck in question is a commercial vehicle and it was hired through one Jagdamba Freight Movers by the owner of the timber, namely, Raj Kumar Sharma (Annexure 1). Petitioner is not accused in the case. It is further submitted that petitioner will discharge his onus as required in law, in the confiscation case, that the truck is lying exposed to weather since 20.1.2004, that nobody will be benefited if the truck is allowed to rot.

State counsel submitted that in view of the Supreme Court judgment ordinarily the truck involved in forest offences should not be released till the final culmination of the proceedings. However, he submitted that if the same is released, it must be against the bank guarantee for the value fixed by the Divisional Forest Officer.

In the circumstances, petitioner should furnish documents in support of the ownership and valuation of the truck before the respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 will satisfy himself about the ownership and valuation of the truck in question and will inform the petitioner about the same within four weeks from the date of such application. If petitioner is found to be the owner of the truck in question and he furnishes bank guarantee to the extent of the valuation of the truck fixed by respondent No. 2, and submits bond with sureties containing the usual terms fixed by the respondent No. 2, the truck may be released in favour of the petitioner within one week of furnishing of the bank guarantee and executing bonds with usual terms. Petitioner will keep the bank guarantee alive, failing which the truck will be seized.

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is disposed of.