Mukesh vs State of M.P.

S.K. Palo, J.—Heard.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and to seek relief that the order passed by the learned District Magistrate on 15.7.2014 be maintained to the extent that instead of furnishing 50 % of the value of the disputed vehicle as bank guarantee, it be ordered to release the same on filing a personal bond and surety to that extent.

Briefly stated the petition lies in narrow compass: The questioned vehicles Truck No. RJ01 GA-7855 and Truck No. R.J 01/G.B.3657 were seized for violating the conditions of the permit in connection with Crime No. 05/14 registered at Police Station Patriya, district Vidisha under Section 11-D of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Gowansh Vadh Pratishesh Adhiniyam read with Section 3/ 181 and 66/ 192 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

By the impugned order, the vehicles are to be given to the respective owners on Supurdnama. Among other conditions, condition No. 1 has been imposed to furnish bank guarantee to the tune of 50 % of the market value of the vehicle.

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have filed this application for the amendment as prayed for.

In Poonaram Nagpure Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, , the Hon''ble High of Chhattisgarh has held that:-

Code of Criminal Procedure (2 to 1974), Sections 451, 457 and 482 -Handing over the vehicle on Supurdnama -Direction to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 2,50,000/-- Applicant submitted that imposing such condition is depriving of handing over the vehicle on Supurdnama to the applicant-Held--Ends of justice will be served if the onerous condition furnishing bank guarantee is dispensed with in this case. 2002 AIC SCW 5301 followed. Vishal Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, relied on."

Similarly, in Munshi and Others Vs. State of M.P. reported in I.L.R. (2008) M.P.187 it has held that:-

"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974) - Sections 451, 457- Interim Custody- Applicants prayed for interim custody of cattles on the ground that they are owners - Revisional Court granted interim custody to applicants but imposed the condition of depositing Rs. 3000/- per cattle - Held- Applicants have been prima facie found rightful owners of cattles - No one else has claimed custody - Cattles should have been given after obtaining proper security - Condition imposed by Court extremely harsh - Application allowed".

In Vishal Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, , it has been held that,

"Code of Criminal Procedure (2 of 1974), Sections 451 and 457 -Handing over the vehicle on Supurdnama- Condition imposed to furnish security of Rs. 4 lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs. 1 lakh - Petition for releasing the vehicle on furnishing security (Supurdnama) instead of bank guarantee-Held--Ends of justice will serve if the stringent and onerous condition of furnishing bank guarantee is dispensed with in this case. 2002 AIC SCW 5301 followed . 1993 (4) Crimes 1974 relied on"

Keeping in view that the petitioners are the owners of the vehicle and imposing of furnishing bank guarantee to the extent of 50 % of the market value of the vehicle, would be too harsh. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioners to furnish security (Supurdnama) instead of bank guarantee. Ends of justice will serve if the stringent and onerous condition of furnishing bank guarantee is dispensed with in this case. Therefore allowing this petition it is ordered that the onerous condition of furnishing bank guarantee is dispensed with and in its place it is directed to furnish two local sureties to the tune each market value of the vehicle and a bond to the tune the market value of the vehicle from the owners of the vehicle be furnished before the vehicle is handed over to the owner.

With the aforesaid directions this petition stands disposed of.