HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4331 OF 2021
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - owner of Crime Vehicle under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking following relief:
"....pleased to modify the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.246 of 2021 in Crime No.82 of 2021 dated 03-05-2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Nidamanoor to the extent of imposing a condition of furnishing of one surety of Rs.28.00 lakhs for interim custody of the vehicle bearing No.TS 05 UC 6166 in favour of the petitioner and pass such other or further order...."
2. Heard Mr. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.
3. A perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner herein is owner of Lorry bearing registration No.TS 05 UC 6166, and respondent No.2 - accused is its driver. The said vehicle was seized by the police of Nidamanoor Police Station in Crime No.82 of 2021 registered for the offences under Sections - 304-II and 307 of IPC against respondent No.2 - accused alleging that on 02.04.2021 at about 17:30 hours respondent No.2 was proceeding from Miryalaguda to Haliya in the lorry driven by him in a rash and negligent manner in drunken condition and when it reached Nidmanoor he dashed a KL,J Crl.P. No.4331 of 2021 2 motorcycle coming from opposite direction, and as a result, two persons died and five persons received severe injuries of which two persons also died while undergoing treatment.
4. The petitioner herein claiming to be the owner of the said lorry filed an application under Section - 451 of Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P. No.246 of 2021 seeking interim custody of the vehicle. The Magistrate vide order dated 03.05.2021 granted interim custody of the said vehicle on certain conditions including the condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Only) with one surety. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present petition to modify the said order to the extent of reducing the amount on the ground that imposition of condition for such amount by the Court below is on higher side and the petitioner herein is not in a position to furnish the surety for such huge amount.
5. Mr. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the subject vehicle was seized by the police and deposited the same before the Magistrate on 19.04.2021. The petitioner used to engage the said vehicle for transport of goods and it is his only source of income. The petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence. In view of the seizure of the said vehicle, the vehicle is exposed to sun and rain and the condition of the vehicle would be deteriorating day by day. He would further submit that the petitioner would be put to great hardship and irreparable loss if KL,J Crl.P. No.4331 of 2021 3 the vehicle is not given as an interim custody to him by reducing the amount imposed by the Court below.
6. The petitioner herein is not an accused, and his driver is an accused in the above case. There is no dispute that the petitioner is owner of the seized vehicle. The Magistrate considering all the said aspects granted interim custody of the seized vehicle to the petitioner. The main contention of the petitioner herein is that he is unable to furnish a bond for Rs.28,00,000/- with one surety and that he is able to furnish only for Rs.50,000/- with one surety.
7. In Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the scope of bail which includes with or without sureties, amount of bond Court should insist upon and propriety of insisting that surety should be from the same district etc. Relying on the said judgment and other judgments of the Apex Court as well as other High Courts, this Court also extensively dealt with the issue in relation to 'furnishing of surety' in Ayush Mahendra v. the State of Telangana2.
8. In view of the above authoritative pronouncements of law, and in the said circumstances narrated by the petitioner in the present petition and also considering the fact that the Magistrate has considered the request for return of the vehicle as interim custody, 1 . (1978) 4 SCC 47 2 . I.A. No.1 of 2020 in Crl.P. No.5782 of 2020, decided on 05.01.2021.
KL,J Crl.P. No.4331 of 2021 4 according to this Court, imposition of a condition to execute a bond for Rs.28.00 lakhs with one surety for a like sum is on higher side and, therefore, the said condition can be modified.
9. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is allowed modifying the order dated 03.05.2021 passed in Crl.M.P. No.246 of 2021 in Crime No.82 of 2021 by the Junior Civil Judge at Nidamanoor to the effect that the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety for like sum in place of Rs.28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Only). However, the other conditions imposed by the Magistrate shall remain unaltered.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
________________ K.LAKSHMAN, J 10th June, 2021 Mgr