Veerabadhra Rao Sunkara VsState Of Telangana

The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - owner of Crime Vehicle under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,

seeking following relief:

“….pleased to modify the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.309 of 2021 in Crime No.213 of 2021 dated 23.07.2021 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class at Banswada to the extent of imposing a condition of furnishing of personal bond of Rs.8.00 lakhs with one surety for interim

custody of the vehicle bearing No.AP 16 TH 4443 in favour of the petitioner and pass such other or further order….â€​

Heard Mr. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

A perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner herein is the owner of Lorry bearing registration No.AP 16 TH 4443, and one Hannu Phakir

is its driver, who is the accused in the crime. The said vehicle was seized by the police of Banswada Police Station in Crime No.213 of 2021

registered for the offences under Section 379 of I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act against the accused

alleging that on 03.07.2021 at about 1400 hours, when the Police Banswada patrolling, they found that the accused illegally transporting sand in the

lorry from Birkoor Manjeera River to Hanmajipet.

The petitioner herein claiming to be the owner of the said lorry filed an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P. No.309 of 2021

seeking interim custody of the vehicle. The Magistrate, vide order, dated 23.07.2021, granted interim custody of the said vehicle on certain conditions

including the condition that the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) with one surety. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner filed the present petition to modify the said order to the extent of reducing the amount on the ground that imposition of condition

for such amount by the Court below is on higher side and he is not in a position to furnish the surety for such huge amount.

Mr. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the subject vehicle was seized by the police and deposited the same before

the Magistrate, vide CPR No.175 of 2021. The petitioner used to engage the said vehicle for transport of goods and it is his only the source of income.

The petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence. If the vehicle is exposed to sun and rain, its condition would be deteriorating day-by-day. He

would further submit that the petitioner would be put to great hardship and irreparable loss if the vehicle is not given to him as an interim custody by

reducing the amount imposed by the Court below.

Referring to G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 19.02.2015, sand policy order dated 14.07.2021 in W.P.No.15986 of 2021, proceedings dated 17.07.2021 of the

Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate, Banswada Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Magistrate did not consider

the same.

The petitioner herein is not an accused and his driver is an accused in the above case. There is no dispute that the petitioner is owner of the seized

vehicle. The Magistrate considering all the said aspects granted interim custody of the seized vehicle to the petitioner. The main contention of the

petitioner herein is that the petitioner is unable to furnish a bond for Rs.8,00,000/- with one surety and that the petitioner is able to furnish only for

Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety.

In Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) 4 SCC 47 the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the scope of bail which

includes with or without sureties, amount of bond Court should insist upon and propriety of insisting that surety should be from the same district etc.

Relying on the said judgment and other judgments of the Apex Court as well as other High Courts, this Court also extensively dealt with the issue in

relation to ‘furnishing of surety’ in Ayush Mahendra v. the State of Telangana I.A. No.1 of 2020 in Crl.P. No.5782 of 2020, decided on

05.01.2021..

In view of the above authoritative pronouncements of law, in the said circumstances narrated by the petitioner in the present petition discussion

supra and also considering the fact that the Magistrate has considered the request for return of the vehicle as interim custody, according to this Court,

imposition of a condition to execute a bond for Rs.8.00 lakhs with one surety for a like sum is on higher side and, therefore, the said condition can be

modified.

Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is allowed modifying the order, dated 23.07.2021, passed in Crl.M.P.No.309 of 2021 in Crime No.213 of

2021 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Banswada, to the effect that the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

Only) with one surety for like sum in place of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only). However, the other conditions imposed by the Magistrate

shall remain unaltered.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.