Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 412 (JHR)

Arjun Yadav v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-04-16

LAKSHMAN URAON

body2004
ORDER Lakshman Uraon, J. 1. Heard both the sides. 2. I.A. No. 341/2004 at Flag A and Original Cr. M.P. No. 4/2004 have been taken up together for hearing as both relate to the same matter regarding release of vehicle. 3. While moving LA. No. 341/2004 the learned A.G. of the State submitted that W.P (Cr.) No. 178/2003 was disposed of in which the State could not file may counter affidavit. It was submitted that the order is conflicting with the judgment referred by the Honble Apex Court in a case of State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnana reported in AIR 2000 SC 2731, Paragraph 7 which is annexure-3 to the interlocutory application. It was submitted that the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court regarding the minimum bank guarantee for releasing any truck confiscated in a forest case should be furnished by the owner for interim release of the truck. The learned counsel for the respondents frankly submitted the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court; but the order which could not be set aside is that there was release order of the truck by furnishing bond with sureties, which was furnished in the year 2002 and is still pending for release. It was submitted that the financial condition of the respondent whose truck has been seized should be considered. 4. As the law laid down by Honble the Apex Court referred to above is very clear that "when any vehicles seized on the allegation that it was used for committing forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to the party till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of each offence including confiscatory proceeding, if any, nonetheless if for any exceptional reasons the Court is inclined to release the vehicle during the pendency; furnishing of bank guarantee should be a minimum condition." 5. The learned A.G. has not challenged the validity of the order but he has insisted that the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court regarding furnishing of minimum bank guarantee should be the condition in releasing the truck. 6. The learned A.G. has not challenged the validity of the order but he has insisted that the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court regarding furnishing of minimum bank guarantee should be the condition in releasing the truck. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the economic condition of the petitioner whose truck is lying un-used is very bad and as such the amount of bank guarantee should be fixed considering the valuation of the truck which is too old and even it is sold in open market it will not be more than Rs. 1,75,000. The learned G.P-II who is present today in the Court has insisted that the minimum bank guarantee should be Rs. 2,00000/-. 7. Having heard both the parties and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, I think that after furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 1,75,000/- (One lakh and seventy five thousand only) the vehicle should be released to the respondents within a week to the satisfaction of the competent authority/ Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma on production of all the documents concerning with the vehicle. 8. As the appeal is pending before the appellate authority and in the mean time the truck in question has been released, the appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeal being Confiscation Appeal No. 4/2002 pending in the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Koderma within one month in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Forest Act on receipt/production of this order. 9. With the above direction/observation W.P. (Cr.) No. 178/2003 and Original Cr. M.P. No. 4/2004 are accordingly disposed of. Petitions disposed of.