Gujarat High Court
Jaydev Baldevbhai Rajgor vs State Of Gujarat on 28 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6042/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL)
NO. 6042 of 2025
==========================================================
JAYDEV BALDEVBHAI RAJGOR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 28/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Looking to the issue involved in the present matter, learned advocates appearing for the parties have jointly requested for disposal of the present petition at an admission stage and, hence, the present petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. Rule. Learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah waives service of notice of rule for respondents.
3. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India read with the provisions of the BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for modification of one of the conditions imposed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh, while passing an order dated 21.02.2025 in Criminal Revision Application No.12 of 2025, by which, the petitioner is directed to furnish an unconditional bank guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times of the value of the seized muddamal vehicle, along with bail and Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 14:05:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6042/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/04/2025 undefined bond of the same amount.
4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that that muddamal vehicle i.e. truck of Ashok Leyland Ltd. bearing Registration No.GJ-12-BX-5944 of the ownership of the petitioner was seized by the concerned authority for the offence punishable under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 as well as the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining and Transportation and Storage) Rules. The petitioner therefore, filed an application under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the learned Court concerned for getting interim custody of the vehicle in question, which has been seized by the concerned authority. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Court concerned. The petitioner, therefore, preferred a revision application before the Revisional Court. The said application came to be allowed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh, vide judgment and order dated 21.02.2025; however, a condition was imposed, whereby petitioner has to furnish an unconditional bank guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times of the value of the seized muddamal vehicle, along with bail and bond of the same amount.
Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 14:05:28 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6042/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/04/2025 undefined The petitioner, therefore, preferred present petition.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the muddamal vehicle and petitioner is carrying on the business of transportation, however as stated above, the muddamal vehicle was seized by the concerned authority on allegation that it was involved in illegal mining and transportation of minor mineral. He further submitted that in fact, the condition imposed by the learned Court concerned is too harsh and it is not possible for the petitioner to fulfill the same. He submits that instead of bank guarantee, petitioner is ready and willing to give solvent surety of the same amount and therefore the said order may be modified to that extent. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon and referred to the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and submitted that in similar type of cases, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed order, whereby, the concerned owners were directed to furnish solvent surety instead of bank guarantee.
7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed this petition and contended that the Sessions Court has not committed any error while imposing the aforesaid condition and, therefore, this Court may not entertain the present petition.
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 14:05:28 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6042/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/04/2025 undefined
8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it appears that in similar type of cases, the Coordinate Bench as well as this Court has considered the request of the concerned owner to furnish solvent surety instead of bank guarantee. Therefore in the facts of the present case, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
9. The petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj- Kachchh, while passing an order dated 21.02.2025 in Criminal Revision Application No.12 of 2025, is hereby modified to the extent that now the petitioner is permitted to submit a solvent surety of the amount of 1.5 times of the value of the seized muddamal vehicle to the satisfaction of the authority concerned instead of furnishing bank guarantee and bail and bond of the same amount, and upon furnishing such solvent surety, the muddamal vehicle shall be released in favour of the petitioner. Rest of the conditions imposed by the learned Court concerned shall continue to operate.
10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) LAVKUMAR J JANI Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 14:05:28 IST 2025