M. Mohan Kumar vs State of Karnataka

H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved of the condition imposed on him to furnish bank guarantee for release of his lorry bearing No. KA-09-A-2843 to his interim custody pending disposal of case bearing No. MOC 58/2012 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & JMFC, T. Narasipura. The respondent/police on 18.12.2012 at about 5.30 p.m. seized the lorry bearing Regn. No. KA-09-A-2843 on the allegation that the same was indulged in illegal transportation of sand without there being valid permit issued from the competent authority. After the seizure the same was reported to the learned Magistrate i.e. the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC, T. Narasipura in MOC NO. 58/2012. Thereafter the petitioner who is the registered owner of the said lorry filed an application u/s. 457(1) of Cr. P.C. praying for interim custody of the said lorry. The learned Magistrate after issuing notice to the State and on hearing released the lorry to the interim custody of the petitioner by imposing certain conditions among which one of them was that he should offer bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- in addition to executing an indemnity bond and a surety for the like sum.

The petitioner being aggrieved of the condition directing him to offer bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- go get. his lorry released, filed Crl. R.P. 12/2013 before the III Addl. Sessions Judge at Mysore. The said revision petition came to be dismissed confirming the condition imposed on him by the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking to modify the said condition imposed on him.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner is eking out his livelihood from the lorry seized in the case. Except for the lorry he has no other vehicle at his command and i.e. his only source of income. He further submits that the petitioner has bought the said lorry by raising loan from the Bank. He is prepared to offer surety to get the lorry released to his interim custody instead of furnishing Bank Guarantee which is acting oppressively on him. He also further submitted in similar circumstances, the learned trial Magistrate has released another lorry to the interim custody of its registered owner. In that case he has not ordered for offering bank guarantee. That goes to show that discrimination has been made in respect of this petitioner and therefore the order directing to offer bank guarantee be modified.

The learned HCGP who has taken notice submits that the order of the learned Magistrate does not call for any interference. However, he submitted that this Court can proceed to pass appropriate orders in the fitness of the case.

A perusal of the order of the trial Magistrate goes to show that he has released another lorry to the interim custody of the registered owner without directing him to offer bank guarantee. The petitioner has contended that the lorry seized in the case is the only source of income for him which also he has bought by raising loan from the Bank. Under these circumstances, the order directing him to offer bank guarantee appears to be, in the facts of the case, not justifiable more particularly in view of the order passed in respect of the other vehicle. In that view of the matter the condition directing the petitioner to offer bank guarantee to get his lorry released to his interim custody imposed on him by the learned Magistrate deserves to be modified. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed;

ii) The order of the learned Magistrate directing the petitioner to offer bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- is set aside and in its place the petitioner is directed to execute indemnity bond in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate. All other conditions imposed on the petitioner stands undisturbed.