Gujarat High Court
Kishore Rajshibhai Gareja vs State Of Gujarat on 8 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6970/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL)
NO. 6970 of 2025
==========================================================
KISHORE RAJSHIBHAI GAREJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. AYAN I MANSURI(17271) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 08/05/2025
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 waives service of notice of rule for respondents.
3. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for modification of the condition imposed while passing an order dated 26.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar in Criminal Misc. Application No.363 of 2024, by which, the Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 17:48:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6970/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined petitioner is directed to furnish bank guarantee of 1.5 times of value of the muddamal in question.
4. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that that muddamal in question of the ownership of the petitioner were 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 Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. 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 said muddamal, which has been seized by the concerned authority. The said application came to be allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar, vide judgment and order dated 26.12.2024; however, a condition was imposed that the petitioner shall furnish unconditional bank guarantee of 1.5 times of value of the muddamal in question. The petitioner, therefore, preferred present petition.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the muddamal, however as stated above, the said muddamal were seized by the concerned authority on allegation Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 17:48:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6970/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined that it was involved in illegal mining. 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 furnish 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.
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 of 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.
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 17:48:41 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6970/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined
9. Therefore, the present petition is allowed. The condition imposed while passing an order dated 26.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar in Criminal Misc. Application No.363 of 2024 is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioner is permitted to submit a solvent surety of 1.5 times of value of the muddamal in question to the satisfaction of the authority concerned instead of furnishing bank guarantee and upon furnishing such solvent surety, the muddamal in question 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 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 17:48:41 IST 2025