Balraj Singh vs Union Territory Of J&K
2021 Latest Caselaw 881 j&K

     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU

                                              Reserved on    11.08.2021
                                              Pronounced on: 13.08.2021

                                              CRM (M) No.426/2021
                                              CrlM No. 1392/2021

Balraj Singh                                       .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)


                      Through: Mr. Jagpaal Singh, Advocate
                Vs
Union Territory of J&K                                        ..... Respondent(s)


                      Through: Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, GA


Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
                                JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section

482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 15.05.2021 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Samba (hereinafter to be referred as the trial

court) to the extent of imposing condition of furnishing bank

guarantee of Rs. 2.00 lacs for release of vehicle bearing registration

number PB11CJ-2204.

2. It is stated that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in

question and a false and frivolous FIR bearing No. 4/2021 under

sections 8 and 15 of the NDPS Act was registered against the

petitioner by the respondent and the petitioner was arrested in

connected with aforesaid FIR. It is further submitted that the vehicle

in question is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner and after

the seizure of the said truck(vehicle), the petitioner is at the verge of

starvation and it is quite impossible for the petitioner to furnish a

bank guarantee of Rs. 2.00 lacs.

3. It is further stated that that the petitioner is the registered owner of

the said vehicle and had approached the court of learned Sessions

Judge, Samba for release of the same on 19.04.2021. The learned

trial court vide order dated 15.05.2021 (supra) directed the release of

the vehicle on supurdnama of the registered owner, subject to

fulfillment of four conditions and one of the conditions figuring at

serial No. 10 is reproduced as under:

"10. The applicant shall also furnish a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2.00 lacs, to abide by the aforenoted conditions."

4. It is further stated that the learned trial court has also dismissed the

review of order impugned vide order dated 02.06.2021 with the

observation that the trial court is not vested with the inherent powers

and also that there is no such provision under criminal law for

modification of its order.

5. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has assailed

order dated 15.05.2021(supra), primarily on the ground that the

aforesaid condition imposed by the learned trial court is not

justifiable.

6. Learned counsels for both the sides submit that appropriate order

may be passed in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC

283.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. The only purpose for releasing of the vehicle is to ensure that the

vehicle remains roadworthy otherwise if the same is allowed to

remain in police custody, the same shall lose its utility. The learned

trial court has already imposed numerous conditions by releasing the

vehicle in question and the purpose is to ensure that the vehicle is not

disposed of by the person on whose supurdnama the vehicle is kept

and the same is produced before the court as and when required.

9. The Apex Court in Sunderbahi Ambalal Desai's case (supra) has

held that:

"It is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications, for return of such vehicles."

10. The condition of imposing bank guarantee by the learned trial court

is harsh, when other conditions have already been imposed by the

trial court. So this Court is of the considered view that the said

condition is required to be modified and the petitioner shall furnish

two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each.

11. For all what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed.

Condition No. 10 imposed vide order dated 15.05.2021 by the

learned trial court is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall

furnish two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the

trial court.

(Rajnesh Oswal) Judge Jammu 13.08.2021 Rakesh

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No