Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajwant Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 16 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050882
CRM-M-40889-2023 2024:PHHC:050882
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
122
CRM-M-40889-2023
Date of decision: 16.04.2024
RAJWANT KAUR
....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, DAG, Punjab.
KULDEEP TIWARI. J.(Oral)
1. Through the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, prayer is made
for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.07.2023, (Annexure P-4), passed by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, whereby, the grievance
raised by the petitioner is not on the legality of the order passed by the learned
trial Court concerned, but, the only grievance which is raised is regarding the
onerous conditions imposed upon the petitioner, while releasing the impounded
vehicle on sapurdari. The vehicle i.e. E-Rickshaw was impounded in FIR No.218
dated 17.07.2023, (Annexure P-1), under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, at
Police Station Sadar, Amritsar.
2. The petitioner being the owner of the vehicle i.e. E-Rickshaw
preferred an application for releasing the vehicle on sapurdari, which found
favour, and the ACJM, Amritsar, proceed to allow the application vide order dated
28.07.2023. However, subject to the condition that petitioner shall furnish
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050882
CRM-M-40889-2023 2024:PHHC:050882
- 2-
sapurdari bonds in sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, along with cash security or bank
guarantee of equal amount. In order to impose the condition (supra), the learned
trial Court concerned relied upon Section 78 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition imposed
upon the petitioner for releasing the vehicle on sapurdari is onerous, rather the
total value of the vehicle is not Rs.1.5 lacs. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that because of harsh conditions imposed upon the petitioner, the
petitioner is unable to pay the said amount, therefore, the release order is of no
use, as petitioner is unable to comply with the same. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further draws attention of this Court, to the judgment passed in Tejinder
Singh @ Honey Vs. State of Punjab, wherein, the similar conditions were
imposed, at the time of releasing the vehicle on sapurdari was modified to the
extent of submitting personal bonds of the same amount. The relevant extract of
the same, reads as under:-
"6. It is not in dispute that the application, which had been filed by the
petitioner for releasing the vehicle, in question, on Superdari, has been
found to be meritorious and was allowed. While allowing the said
application, it was observed in the order dated 13.09.2021 that no useful
purpose would be served by keeping the said vehicle, which was a Scorpio
car and was of 2010 model, in custody as it would deteriorate the
condition of the vehicle. Although, the said order was passed on
13.09.2021 but on account of the condition of deposit of security to the
tune of Rs.3,00,000/- in the form of cash security or Bank guarantee, the
petitioner has not been able to get the said vehicle released and thus, the
the same shows that the said condition of the impugned order is onerous.
The Coordinate Bench of this court in Arshdeep Singh's case has held as
under:-
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering the hardship
being faced by the petitioner that he is unable to get his vehicle released
for the last one and half year and also in view of the fact that the vehicle is
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050882
CRM-M-40889-2023 2024:PHHC:050882
- 3-
lying unused and parked in police station in an open space and may outlive
its life, I deen it appropriate to substitute the condition of furnishing bank
guarantee of Rs.2.50 lacs with furnishing of personal bond in a sum of
Rs.2.50 lacs and additional security bond of Rs.2.50 lacs.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the order dated 24.06.2020
passed by the trial Court is set aside.
With aforesaid modification, present petition stands disposed of."
7. Even the above case is a case in which a condition of furnishing
bank guarantee of Rs. 2.50 Tacs was imposed for the release of the vehicle,
in question, on superdari and the said condition was modified after
considering the hardship that was being faced by the petitioner therein.
8. The facts of the case of the present petition are similar to the facts
of the above said case.
9. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the present
petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.09.2021, only to the
extent that a condition has been imposed for "deposit of security to the
tune of Rs.3,00,000/- in the form of cash security or Bank guarantee", is
modified and instead of the said condition, the following condition would
have to be complied with by the petitioner:-
1(i) The petitioner would submit personal bond in sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
and also additional security bond of Rs.3,00,000"
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in, Darshan Singh and others Vs.
State of Punjab and others, 2021 (2) law Herald 1085, wherein, the vehicle was
ordered to be released on sapurdari, on depositing of 20 per cent of the assessed
amount, in cash, and give security for the remaining amount.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, as well as the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, and has no
hesitation to observe that the condition imposed upon the petitioner, is an onerous
condition, and therefore, the same is required to be modified.
7. Keeping in view the above observations, the present petition is
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050882
CRM-M-40889-2023 2024:PHHC:050882
- 4-
allowed, and the impugned order dated 28.07.2023, (Annexure P-4), is ordered to
be modified to the extent that the petitioner shall furnish personal bond in sum of
Rs.1.5 lac, and also additional security bond of the same amount.
8. Disposed of accordingly.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
16.04.2024 JUDGE
amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
4 of 4
