Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 145 (RAJ)

Nawab Singh v. State

2006-01-13

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2006
Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur and also the order dated 26.04.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur whereby the learned Magistrate directed the release of the Tractor and Trolley but on the condition of bank guarantee. 2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the tractor and trolley No. UP-80-B-0423 and the said tractor and trolley were seized by the Police Station, Kolari, in a criminal case for offence under Section 29/51 of the Protection of Wild Life Animals Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he transported the illegal Chambal sand from Chambal crocodile area. Learned Counsel further contends that the petitioner being a registered owner filed an application for release of the said tractor and trolley on supurdaginama, the learned Magistrate accepted the application and directed the release of the said tractor and trolley on furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,00,000/-and also supurdaginama in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-with certain conditions. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition on the ground that there is no statutory requirement to furnish any bank guarantee before the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 05.05.2005 partly allowed the revision petition and modified the order dated 26.04.2005 whereby he reduced the amount of bank guarantee from Rs. 1,00,000/-to Rs. 30,000/-and maintained the rest part of the order. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the orders of the aforesaid Court, the petitioner has already furnished the bank guarantee, the same may be refunded back to the petitioner. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no statutory requirement to furnish any bank guarantee. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as also the impugned Judgment s. 6. In view of the decision given in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1328/2005, Ram Babu vs. State of Rajasthan, decided by this Court on 210.2005, we allow this Cr. Misc. Petition. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as also the impugned Judgment s. 6. In view of the decision given in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1328/2005, Ram Babu vs. State of Rajasthan, decided by this Court on 210.2005, we allow this Cr. Misc. Petition. Since, the tractor and trolley were seized by the Police Station, Kolari as the sand was being transported from the Chambal area and as there is no statutory requirement about filing of bank guarantee then there is no necessity to impose such a condition while releasing a vehicle under Section 457, CrPC, Such condition can only impose to secure production of the vehicle in question before the Court as and when an order is passed in that regard. If amount of surety or ‘supardaginama’ is not adequate then it can be increased. 7. Under the circumstances mentioned above, the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee by the petitioner is set aside. The tractor and trolley be released or handed over to the petitioner on his furnishing ‘supurdaginama’ and ‘jamanatnama’ of Rs. 1,00,000/-as ordered by the lower Court. Since, the petitioner has deposited the amount of bank guarantee, the same be refunded to him within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. The Cr. Misc. Petition stands disposed of .