Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 18 March, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038479
CRM-M No. 13576-2024 1 2024:PHHC:038479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
128
CRM-M No. 13576-2024
Date of Decision: 18.03.2024
Sandeep Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Hardeep Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
****
KIRTI SINGH, J.(ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for quashing/setting aside the condition
of deposit of Rs. 2 lacs of penalty amount in the form of fixed deposit
imposed by the mining department vide impugned order dated 12.02.2024
(Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala
in case FIR No. 51 dated 22.11.2023, under Section 21(1) of Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 379 of IPC,
registered at Police Station HSEnB, Ambala.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition to
deposit of Rs. 2 lacs penalty in the form of fixed deposit has been wrongly
imposed by the learned Trial Court. He further submits that the vehicle in
question has been falsely implicated in this case of illegal mining by the
mining officer and the vehicle impounded by the mining officer was only
parked and was not being used in any activity. He further places reliance on
the judgment rendered in CRM-M-9846-2024 decided on 26.02.2024 passed
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038479
CRM-M No. 13576-2024 2 2024:PHHC:038479
by this Court (Annexure P-4).
3. Notice of motion.
4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana,
who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and
places reliance on the judgment in Ikran Khan versus State of Haryana in
CRM-M-11740-2024, decided on 06.03.2024 passed by this Court.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties.
6. In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties,
this Court finds merits in the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner regarding the onerous condition of fixed deposit in the sum of
Rs.2.0 laksh imposed by the trial Court upon the petitioner. Consequently,
this condition is hereby set aside.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.02.2024 is modified
and the vehicle is ordered to be released on supurdari to the petitioner on his
furnishing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty
Magistrate subject to the condition 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, transfer, 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.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038479
CRM-M No. 13576-2024 3 2024:PHHC:038479
8. In case of violation of the undertaking by the petitioner, liberty
is granted to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the supurdari bond.
9. Petition is accordingly disposed of.
18.03.2024 (KIRTI SINGH)
Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038479
3 of 3
