Pawan vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 2362 P&H

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH
246
                                                        CRM-M-5988-2022(O&M)
                                                        Date of decision: 31.03.2022
PAWAN
                                                                        ....Petitioner
                                 Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

                                                                      ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
                         *****

Present :    Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG Haryana.
                                   *****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J. (ORAL)

Challenge in the instant petition is to the quashing/modification of

the order dated 16.07.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, whereby the Trial Court has directed the

petitioner/applicant Pawan (registered owner) to deposit 20% of the penalty

imposed by the authorities concerned along with furnishing a supurdginama in

the sum of Rs.10 lakhs with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

trial Court for release of the vehicle.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the

petitioner has no objection to the furnishing of supurdginama in the sum of

Rs.10 lakhs along with one surety in the like amount, however, his grievance is

restricted to the onerous condition of deposit of 20% of the penalty amount.

Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment dated

03.08.2021 passed in CRM-M-30659-2021 titled as Sombir Versus State of

Haryana, wherein, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had held that condition of

1 of 2

CRM-M-5988-2022(O&M) -2 -

cash deposit of 20% of the penalty amount is onerous. It was further observed that

the Court in question should not impose oppressive conditions as would amount to

virtual denial of the relief.

Accordingly, the order dated 16.07.2021 is modified to the extent that

the vehicle is ordered to be released on supurdagi to the petitioner on his

furnishing a deposit of 10% of the penalty amount. The supurdginama as well as

the surety shall remain as have been ordered by the trial Court, subject to the

conditions that the petitioner shall furnish an undertaking to the effect that:-

(i) he will preserve the vehicle in the same condition during the

pendency of the trial;

(ii) he will not sell, dispose of, alienate or mortgage etc., the vehicle,

during pendency of the trial;

(iii) he will produce the vehicle before the trial Court as and when

directed to do so and;

(iv) he will ensure that the vehicle is not involved in any other

criminal case.

In case of violation of the undertaking by the petitioner, liberty is

granted to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the sapurdari bond.

Petition is accordingly disposed of.

                                                   (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
                                                         JUDGE
March 31, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)

        Whether speaking/reasoned           :     Yes/No
        Whether reportable                  :     Yes/No




                                         2 of 2