Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 12 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035011
2024:PHHC:035011
122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12645-2024
Date of decision: 12.03.2024
Ravinder Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Naveen S. Attri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing/setting aside of condition of Rs.2 lakhs of penalty amount in
the form of fixed deposit imposed vide impugned order dated 02.02.2024
(Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala in
case bearing FIR No.63 dated 10.01.2024 under sections 21(1)/21(4)(A) of
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 379
of IPC registered at Police Station HSEnB, Ambala.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the case set
up by the prosecution, the vehicle of the petitioner was seized when it was
parked and as such, the allegation of the same being used for illegal activity is
not made out. The vehicle was seized by the concerned authorities in FIR
(supra) and the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala, while passing the
impugned order dated 02.02.2024 (Annexure P-3) has imposed a penalty of
Rs.2 lakhs for releasing the vehicle on sapurdari and such condition is liable to
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035011
2024:PHHC:035011
be set aside and placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in
'Sukhchain Vs. State of Haryana' CRM-M-9846-2024 decided on 26.02.2024
(Annexure P-4).
Notice of motion.
Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana puts in appearance and accepts
notice on behalf of the respondent-State and opposes the prayer made by the
petitioner on the ground that the vehicle owned by the petitioner was involved
in illegal mining and the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala, has rightly
imposed the condition of penalty of Rs.2 lakhs on the basis of the
recommendation of the Mining Officer.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent,
the case is taken up for final disposal.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
record, the release of the vehicle seized in an FIR (supra) is governed by the
provision of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. and the case of the petitioner is squarely
covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in 'Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat' (2002) 10 SCC 283 and 'Ikram and
another Vs. State of Rajasthan' 1984 RajCriC 274. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ikram's case (supra) has set aside the condition of penalty of Rs.5
lakhs for releasing the vehicle on sapurdari and directed the petitioner therein
to furnish the personal bond along with an undertaking that he will not transfer
the vehicle till the conclusion of the trial and would be bound to produce the
vehicle, in question, as and when required.
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the condition as
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035011
2024:PHHC:035011
imposed vide impugned order for depositing of Rs.2 lakhs in the shape of Fixed
Deposit is set aside. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The
petitioner is directed to furnish personal bond with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate and would
also furnish an undertaking that he will not transfer the vehicle in question
during the pendency of the trial and he would produce the same as and when
required.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
12.03.2024
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035011
3 of 3
