Orissa High Court
Jumma Khan vs State Of Odisha ..... Opp. Party on 21 July, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2585 of 2025
Jumma Khan ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Susanta Kumar Jethy
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Opp. Party
Represented By Adv. -
C.M. Singh, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
21.07.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the
documents annexed thereto.
3. By filing the present application under Section 528 of the
B.N.S.S. the Petitioner seeks modification of the condition in the
judgment dated 24.04.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No.05 of
2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur.
4. The above noted Revision Petition arises out of G.R. Case
No.56 of 2025 which corresponds to Krushnanandapur P.S. Case
No.18 of 2025. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset
contended that initially the Petitioner moved an application for
release of his vehicle under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. which was
rejected by the learned J.M.F.C., Tirtol in Crl. Misc. Case No.05
of 2025. Being aggrieved by order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the
learned J.M.F.C., Tirtol, the Petitioner preferred a revision bearing
Criminal Revision No.05 of 2025 before the learned Sessions
Judge, Jagatsinghpur. Learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, vide
judgment dated 24.04.2025, although was pleased to release the
vehicle in favour of the Petitioner, however, learned Sessions
Judge, Jagatsinghpur has imposed certain conditions subject to
which the vehicle has been directed to be released in favour of the
Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the condition imposed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, the Petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present application for
modification of the conditions imposed vide order dated
24.04.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the
condition imposed by the learned Revisional Court is excessive in
nature and the Petitioner is unable to meet such conditions. As a
result, there is every likelihood that the vehicle is likely to remain
in the custody of the police. As a result, the same may loose its
value as it is stationed in the open exposed to the sun and rain. On
such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that
keeping in view the judgment of this Court in Ashish Ranjan
Mohanty v. State of Odisha reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Ori
520, the conditions imposed may be relaxed.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to
the modification of the conditions imposed vide order dated
24.04.2025. Further, referring to the impugned judgment dated
24.04.2025 under Annexure-1, learned counsel for the State
contended that the vehicle in question is involved in a number of
cases. Therefore, learned court below has directed the release of
the vehicle subject to certain stringent conditions. In such view of
the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the court
below has not committed any illegality in passing the judgment
dated 24.04.2025. As such, the present application is being devoid
of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the impugned
judgment dated 24.04.2025, this Court prima facie observes that
the vehicle in question is involved in several cases as has been
indicated in para-4 of the judgment. In such view of the matter,
this Court is of the view that the learned Revisional Court has not
committed any illegality in imposing stringent conditions vide
judgment dated 24.04.2025. However, taking into considerations
the fact that the Petitioner is unable to deposit a cash security of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) as directed by the learned
Revisional Court, this Court is inclined to modify the same.
Accordingly, it is directed that the judgment dated 24.04.2025
shall remain intact, however, the conditions with regard to deposit
of cash security and indemnity bond stand modified to the
following extent:-
i) the Petitioner shall furnish a cash security of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) instead of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees
Two Lakhs) as directed vide judgment dated 24.04.2025;
ii) the Petitioner shall also furnish a property security to the
tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) instead of an
indemnity bond subject to satisfaction of the court in seisin
over the matter.
All other conditions imposed vide judgment dated
24.04.2025 shall remain intact.
8. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 22-Jul-2025 14:59:49
