Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 423 (KAR)

CHIDANANDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2020-02-13

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
ORDER : Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for respondent. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for modification of the order dated 23.12.2019 in Criminal Misc.No.765/2019 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal at Koppal in connection with Crime No.97/2019 registered by the Bevoor Police for the offence punishable under Sections 379 of IPC and r/w Section 21(1) and 21(2) of MMDR Act 1957 and also r/w Rules 42, 43 and 44 of KMMC Rules. 2. The petitioner by way of the above petition is seeking for modification of condition No.4 of the order dated 23.12.2019, by virtue of which the trial Court had directed the petitioner to furnish renewable bank guarantee of Rs.8 Lakhs. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who is resident of Gunnal Village who is R.C.Holder of seized Tractor bearing registration No.KA-37/TB-3385 and Trailer bearing registration No.KA-37/T-7587 and the petitioner had moved an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., seeking for release of the above vehicles. It is submitted that the vehicle was required for day-to-day use for daily agricultural work of the petitioner and keeping the same idle, would not be of benefit to any one. 4. The trial Court after considering the application filed by the petitioner was pleased to allow the same however imposed the condition that the petitioner has to make available a renewable bank guarantee of Rs.8,00,000/-for the purpose of release of the said vehicles. 5. The petitioner states that in pursuance of the amended Rule, the condition imposed as such is illegal and liable to be set aside and as such seeks for modification of the condition No.4. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and having considered the facts of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that when the vehicle was seized no proceedings were pending for the offences punishable under the provisions of MMDR Act or KMMC Rules. This being an admitted fact the question of invoking Rule 43(8) of KMMC Rules and imposition of a condition of furnishing a renewable bank guarantee would not at all arise and therefore is liable to be set aside. The other conditions in the said order dated 23.12.2019, would stands unaltered. Accordingly, I pass the following; ORDER : The criminal petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. The other conditions in the said order dated 23.12.2019, would stands unaltered. Accordingly, I pass the following; ORDER : The criminal petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. The condition No.4 imposed in the order dated 23.12.2019 in Criminal Misc.No.765/2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, at Koppal, is set aside. The petitioner is directed to execute and furnish an indemnity bond in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs with surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. The other conditions as stated above are not disturbed.