Farooq Ahmed Dar vs Union Territory Of J&K
2021 Latest Caselaw 942 j&K

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 942 j&K
Judgement Date : 23 August, 2021

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Farooq Ahmed Dar vs Union Territory Of J&K on 23 August, 2021

     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU
                                               Reserved on    18.08.2021
                                               Pronounced on: 23 .08.2021

                                               CRM (M) No.454/2021
                                               CrlM No. 1479/2021

Farooq Ahmed Dar                                    .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)


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


                      Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG


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

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482

Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated 16.07.2021

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur to the extent of

imposing condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 5.00 lacs for

release of vehicle bearing registration number JK16 0798 and the

petitioner has prayed for compliance of conditions through Attorney

holder of petitioner.

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

question and the aforesaid vehicle was seized by the respondent in

connection with FIR bearing No. 224/2021 under sections 8 and 15 of

the NDPS Act that was registered against the driver hired by the

petitioner for driving the said vehicle.

3. It is further stated that that the petitioner had approached the court of

learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur for release of the same and the

learned Judge vide order dated 16.07.2021 (supra) directed the release

of the vehicle on supurdnama of the registered owner, subject to

fulfillment of a personal bond and one surety to the extent of insured

value of the vehicle as on date with further seven conditions and one of

the conditions figuring at serial No. vii is reproduced as under:

"vii) registered owner shall furnish a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. Five lac for the due compliance of these conditions."

4. It is further stated that the vehicle in question is the only source of the

livelihood of the petitioner and after the seizure of the said vehicle, the

petitioner is at the verge of the starvation and it is quite impossible for

the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 5.00 lacs.

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

order dated 16.07.2021(supra), primarily on the ground that the

aforesaid condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is harsh,

unreasonable and uncalled for.

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 Sessions

Judge, Udhampur has already imposed numerous conditions while

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 Sessions

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

learned Judge. So this Court is of the considered view that the said

condition is required to be quashed.

11. The other relief sought by the petitioner for compliance of the

conditions through attorney holder cannot be considered as the learned

Sessions Judge, Udhampur has not returned any finding with regard to

the said relief.

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

Condition No. vii imposed vide order dated 16.07.2021 by the learned

Sessions Judge, Udhampur is quashed and the petitioner is left free to

approach the Sessions Court, Udhampur for modification of order