Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1191 (JHR)

Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Kr. Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-08-25

R.R.PRASAD

body2009
Order Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the Slate. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in connection with Bandgaon Keraikella P.S. Case No. 1 of 2009 instituted under Sections 414, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, five trucks belonging to these petitioners were seized by Bandgaon Police. Subsequently, when the petitioners were granted bail, application for release of those vehicles bearing registrations nos. JH-01L-6427, JH-01M-4510, JH-01M-5198, JH-01L-7809 and JH-01L-7805 belonging to the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 respectively was made but the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa, vide its order dated 12.5.2000 refused to release those vehicles in favour of the petitioners. 3. Being aggrieved with that, the petitioners have preferred Criminal Revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa and the learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties passed an order vide its order dated 15.7.2009 for release of those vehicles but on depositing bank guarantee of Rs. 6,00,000/- for each of the vehicle (truck). 4. According to the petitioners, since that amount was quite high, an application was filed subsequently for modification of the said order so that lesser amount of the bank guarantee be ordered to be deposited by the petitioners. However, the learned Sessions Judge, vide its order dated 23.7.2009 directed the petitioners to deposit bank guarantee of Rs. 3,00,000/- for each of the vehicle (truck) whereas the petitioners had offered to deposit bank guarantee of Rs. 1,00,000/- for each of the truck but since that prayer was not acceded to, this application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 23.7.2009 Whereby the petitioners have been ordered to deposit bank guarantee of Rs. 3,00,000/- for each of the vehicle (truck) as that amount in that event, the petitioners would not be getting being quite excessive, the petitioners may not be able to deposit the bank guarantee of the said amount and any fruit of the order under which trucks were ordered to be released in favour of the petitioners and, under this situation, order impugned is fit to be set aside. It was further submitted that if the order is set aside, necessary order be passed so that the petitioners may reap the fruit of the order relating to release of the vehicle. 5. It was further submitted that if the order is set aside, necessary order be passed so that the petitioners may reap the fruit of the order relating to release of the vehicle. 5. However, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the order directing the petitioners to deposit, bank, guarantee of Rs. 3,00,000/- for each of the vehicle (truck) never appears to be too excessive and hence; the order dated 23.7.2009 needs not to be interfered with. 6. Having heard counsel for the 'parties it be stated that if any order is passed in favour of the petitioners that should be passed keeping in view that the petitioners may reap fruit of it. Generally it is found that the vehicle is ordered to be released on furnishing even the bond of appropriate amount whereas in the instant case condition has been imposed for depositing the bank guarantee of Rs. 3,00,000/- for each of truck which condition appears to be too stringent and hence impugned order is hereby set aside. 7. In the facts and circumstances as stated on behalf of the petitioners, it would , be appropriate and proper that the respective vehicles be released in favour of the petitioners on deposit of bank guarantee of Rs. 1,00,000/- for each of the vehicle (truck) and on giving undertaking that the petitioners would not dispose of the vehicles in question or alienate to anyone without prior permission of the court and that they would produce the vehicles in question as and when required by the court. 8. With the aforesaid direction, this writ application is disposed of.