Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sunil Singh vs Ut Of J&K on 3 November, 2021
Sr. No. 105
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM (M) No. 689/2021
Sunil Singh .....Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate
v/s
UT of J&K .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG
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 the order dated 07.11.2020 passed by the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Samba (hereinafter to be referred as
the trial court) to the extent of imposing condition of furnishing bank
guarantee of Rs. 30,000/- for release of vehicle (Motorcycle) bearing
registration number JK 21D-2661.
2. It is stated that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in
question and a false and frivolous FIR bearing No. 145/2020 under
sections 8/15/20/29 of the NDPS Act was registered as motorcycle in
question was used for illegally carrying/transporting of contraband
(20 pieces of charas like substance) weighing 300/350 gms. It is
further submitted that the motorcycle in question is the only source of
conveyance of the petitioner and being a poor man it is quite
impossible for him to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 30,000/
3. It is further stated that the petitioner is the registered owner of the
said vehicle and had approached the trial court for release of the
same. The learned trial court vide order dated 07.11.2020 (supra)
directed the release of the motorcycle bearing No. JK21D 2661 and
mobile Samsung temporarily and retaining RC of the said motorcycle
in original in favour its registered owner on furnishing of bank
guarantee of Rs. 30,000/- with certain undertakings.
4. The petitioner through the medium of present petition has assailed
order dated 07.11.2020 primarily on the ground that the aforesaid
condition imposed by the learned trial court is not justifiable.
5. 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.
6. Heard and perused the record.
7. 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 certain 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.
8. 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."
9. 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. 15,000/- each.
10. For all what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and
the condition of furnishing of bank guarantee of Rs. 30,000/-
imposed by the learned trial court vide order dated 07.11.2020 is
modified to the extent that the petitioner shall furnish two sureties of
Rs. 15,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court.
(Rajnesh Oswal)
Judge
JAMMU
03.11.2021
Karam Chand/Secy
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
