Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 711 (RAJ)

Shrikant Gupta v. State of Rajasthan

2015-03-26

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, No.1, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the court below') in Criminal Misc. Case No.246/2014, whereby the court below while ordering for releasing the vehicle Tata Safari No.GJ-1-KH-7291 bearing Chasis No.MAT 403715 ANN 12487 and Engine No.2.2LDICOR 09 NZYJ 22000 in favour of the petitioner has imposed a condition to furnish bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- along with a sound and solvent sureity of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question which was stolen from Gujarat on 31.05.2015. It is contended that in connection with the said theft, the petitioner lodged the FIR No.131/2014 at Police Station, Vastrapur, District Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. It is contended that after lodging of above mentioned FIR by the petitioner, the vehicle in question in which, the contraband poppy husk was being transported, was seized by the police of Mangalwad Police Station, District Chittorgarh on 22.07.2014 and thereafter the FIR No.94/2014 was registered. It is contended that in that connection the police of Mangalwad Police Station, District Chittogarh after thorough investigation into the FIR No.94/2014, has found that the petitioner was not involved in the commission of crime or the contraband was also not being transported as per his consent. It is further contended that there was no reason for the court below to impose the condition of furnishing bank guarantee along with the sound and solvent sureity when neither the petitioner was involved in commission of crime nor there was any claim by other persons for releasing the vehicle in question on Supurdaginama. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 5. It is true that the petitioner is being put to extreme hardship in this case. He is registered owner of the seized vehicle in question which was stolen by the thieves prior to its seizure by the police of Mangalwad Police Station, District Chittogarh for transporting illegal drugs. 6. It is not in dispute that during the course of investigation, the police did not find involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime. He is registered owner of the seized vehicle in question which was stolen by the thieves prior to its seizure by the police of Mangalwad Police Station, District Chittogarh for transporting illegal drugs. 6. It is not in dispute that during the course of investigation, the police did not find involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the court below was not justified in imposing the condition of furnishing bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- along with the sound and solvent surety of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the purpose of releasing the vehicle in question on Supurdaginama to the petitioner. 7. In such circumstances, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, No.1, Chittorgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.246/2014 is modified and the condition imposed by the court below of furnishing bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- is hereby deleted, however, other conditions mentioned in the order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, No.1, Chittorgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.246/2014 will remain in force.Petition allowed. *******