Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1431 (KAR)

Ravi v. State

2020-07-17

N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

body2020
JUDGMENT N K Sudhindrarao, J. - This matter is taken up through Video Conference today. 2. Learned counsel Sri A.V.Ramakrishna, for petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for respondent is present. 3. The petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.25/2020 by Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya dated 18.02.2020, whereby the learned judge dismissed the revision petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. and confirmed the order dated 17.01.2020 passed in Crime No.128/2019 by Civil Judge and JMFC Pandavapura, for the offence under Sections 42, 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Consistent Rule -1994 and Sections 21, 4(1), 4(1A) of Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act -1957 and Section 379 of IPC. 4. Basically criminal case came to be registered against the driver and owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-11-B-5792 for the aforesaid offences and the vehicle in question is tipper lorry. It is stated that the said vehicle was transporting stolen sand on 18.12.2019 without any permit or license. Melukote police have registered the case on the strength of complaint lodged by one Chidananda.B Police Officer. The present petitioner is stated to be accused No.2 who is the RC owner of the vehicle in the case. 5. An application was filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., in Cr.No.128/2019 and the said application was filed by petitioner-accused No.2 came to be allowed subject to the condition. The operative portion of the said order is as under: "ORDER 1. The application filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant is hereby allowed, the vehicle bearing No.KA-11-B-5792 is released for interim custody of the applicant, with following conditions. 2. The applicant shall furnish bank guarantee or deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and along with one surety for like sum, within three months from the date of this order. 3. The applicant shall not transfer the said Tipper Lorry Vehicle Bearing No.KA-11-B-5792 in favour of others in any manner. 4. The applicant shall not change the identification of the said vehicle by making major repair or by changing its colour. 5. The applicant shall produce the said Vehicle before this Court and I.O. whenever required to do so. 6. I.O. Shall take photographs of the said Vehicle from different angles at the expenses of the applicant and submit along with report. 7. 5. The applicant shall produce the said Vehicle before this Court and I.O. whenever required to do so. 6. I.O. Shall take photographs of the said Vehicle from different angles at the expenses of the applicant and submit along with report. 7. If the applicant fails to furnish security as per condition No.1, the office is hereby directed to issued notification for auction of the said Vehicle, after laps of three months from the date of this order. 8. Intimate the same to concerned I.O." 6. However, the petitioner was directed to furnish bank guarantee or deposit Rs.5,00,000/- along with one surety for the likesum within three months from the date of said order. 7. The effect of non-compliance of the condition No.2 is mentioned at Condition No.7 of the order dated 17.01.2020 which is as under: "7. If the applicant fails to furnish security as per condition No.1, the office is hereby directed to issued notification for auction of the said Vehicle, after laps of three months from the date of this order." 8. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Sessions Judge, at Mandya in Crl.R.P.No.25/2020, on 18.1.2020, the said application came to be rejected. Thereby, the order of the Civil Judge and JMFC came to be confirmed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner accused No.2 would submit that the petitioner is pulling on the hard days with the said vehicle as the source of livelihood and he has been asked to furnish bank guarantee which is very difficult for him. He would further submit that the learned trail judge erred in imposing such a huge condition of furnishing bank guarantee or depositing of Rs.5,00,000/- and hence seeks for relaxation of said condition. 10. Learned HCGP opposes the same and submits that the vehicle is very much required for completion of investigation and also for the trial and submits that the petitioner has not made out grounds for release of the vehicle. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the very purpose of imposing condition is that the vehicle required to be produced before the authority vested with responsibility of the matter, maintaining the appearance, shape and the structure of the vehicle in tact. 12. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the very purpose of imposing condition is that the vehicle required to be produced before the authority vested with responsibility of the matter, maintaining the appearance, shape and the structure of the vehicle in tact. 12. No doubt, the conditions are necessary whenever the relief is granted to a person who is also responsible to perform certain duties subsequent to granting of the relief but furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/- is almost equal to depositing of money of Rs.5,00,000/-. 13. In the circumstances, when the situation is hard hit by pandemic Covid-19, I do not find that the condition of granting reliefs may need not be in favour of the petitioner if he is asked to comply with the present condition. In my considered view, the condition No.2 imposed by the trial Judge is too harsh and uphill task for him for compliance and same requires to be relaxed. Thus, in place of condition No.2 i.e., "the applicant shall furnish bank guarantee or deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and along with one surety for like sum, within three months from the date of this order", the effect of non-compliance as stated in condition No.7 of the order dated 17.01.2020, shall be replaced with the following condition: "Petitioner is directed to furnish indemnity bond for Rs.5,00,000/- and also furnish a surety of a person possessing immovable property in Pandavapura Town and furnish the original documents of the surety with a condition of forfeiture of the bond amount in case of non-compliance of the condition." Accordingly, petition is allowed in part.