Orissa High Court
Kanhu Charan Pradhan vs State Of Odisha on 12 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2307 of 2022
Kanhu Charan Pradhan Petitioner
Mr. S. Dwibedi, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order 12.09.2022
No.
01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the
petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 30th June, 2022
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in Criminal
Misc. Case No.5/34 of 2021 in imposing bank guarantee besides the
property surety for an amount of Rs.4 lac on the grounds stated
therein.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such a
condition imposed by learned court below directing petitioner to
furnish a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.4 lac is on the higher
side and therefore, same should be substituted by property surety in
the interest of justice. It is further submitted that the two vehicles
such as a Range Rover EVOQUE SD-4 car bearing registration
No.OD-16G-9339 having Engine No.DZ7840241288224DT and
Chassis No.SALVA2AD0CH606624 and HYUNDAI CRETA bearing
registration No.OD-02BG-7696 having Engine No.D4FCKM877910
and Chassis No.MALC181RLKM628793 are lying in the premises of
the PS exposed to extreme climatic conditions and considering the
decisions of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vrs. State
of Gujarat: (2002) 10 SCC 283 and this Court's judgment in Ashis
Ranjan Mohanty Vrs. State of Odisha and Ors. decided in W.P.(C)
No.31622 of 2021 and disposed of on 31st January, 2022, it should
immediately be released in custody of the petitioner without bank
guarantee. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand
submits that the condition is not onerous having regard to the
valuation of one of vehicles assessed at Rs.25 lac by the MVI and
therefore, the same should not be disturbed.
4. The Court perused the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1. No
doubt, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nayagarh released the
vehicles in favour of the petitioner but imposed twin conditions of
property surety and bank guarantee to the extent of Rs.4 lac and
imposed other conditions as well. The said condition of bank
guarantee is under challenge in the present case on the ground that
the petitioner is unable to arrange the same in compliance thereof.
Considering the nature of allegations whereupon the criminal action
was launched and the fact that the vehicles involved and seized by
the local police are lying in the premises of the PS since last two
years, the Court is of the view that the condition, such as, the bank
guarantee should be deleted so as to enable the petitioner to take
custody of both the vehicles by furnishing a property surety to the
tune of Rs.4 lac. In other words, the Court is of the opinion that the
petitioner should only be demanded a property surety for the
amount instead exempting him from furnishing a bank guarantee as
has been ordered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nayagarh
which would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice. The
above direction is keeping in view the settled position of law as
enunciated by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai case
(supra) and also decision of Ashis Ranjan Mohanty ibid with the
conclusion that unless the condition is moderated to ensure release
of the vehicles, the same would be damaged subjecting the
petitioner to substantial loss.
5. Accordingly, it is ordered.
6. In the result, CRLMC stands allowed to the extent indicated
above. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to furnish a property
surety to the tune of Rs.4 lac in place of bank guarantee for the
purpose of taking custody of the alleged vehicles in connection with
S.T. Case No.102 of 2021 corresponding to Chandpur P.S. Case
No.37 of 2020 besides fulfillment of other conditions as already
directed by the court below.
7. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per
rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
