Gujarat High Court
Ajitbhai Rungajibhai Chaudhari vs State Of Gujarat on 2 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4503/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL)
NO. 4503 of 2025
==========================================================
AJITBHAI RUNGAJIBHAI CHAUDHARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR L PATEL(11596) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 02/04/2025
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. Chintan Dave waives service of
notice of rule for and on behalf of 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 01.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No.1492 of 2025,
by which, the petitioner is directed to furnish bank guarantee
of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh only).
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4503/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jigar Patel appearing for
the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.
Chintan Dave for the respondents.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that
muddamal vehicle i.e. Bharat Benz Dumper bearing
Registration No.GJ-19-Y-5117 of the ownership of the
petitioner was seized by the concerned authority for the
offence punishable under Section 22 of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957. The
petitioner therefore, filed an application under Section 497 of
the BNSS 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 allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat,
vide judgment and order dated 01.03.2025; however, a
condition was imposed that the petitioner shall furnish bank
guarantee of Rs.15,00,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Lakh only). 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 transport, 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 solvent surety of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4503/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
the same amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh only)
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.
9. Therefore, the present petition is allowed. The condition
imposed while passing an order dated 01.03.2025 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Misc.
Application No.1492 of 2025 is hereby modified to the extent
that the petitioner is permitted to submit a solvent surety to
the extent of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh only) to the
satisfaction of the authority concerned instead of furnishing
bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4503/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
Lakh only) 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)
Pankaj
