Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kashmiri Lal vs State Of Punjab on 18 January, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007133
CRM-M-2679-2025 1
115 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-2679-2025
Date of decision : 18.01.2025
Kashmiri Lal .....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Amandeep Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS
for quashing/modifying the order dated 18.11.2023 (Anenxure P-3),
passed by the Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar having been passed harshly
while directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee of a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- in the interest of justice, arising out of FIR No.34 dated
28.03.2022 under Sections 302, 148, 149, 120-B of IPC and Sections 25,
54, 59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Rahon, District SBS
Nagar.
2. Learned counsel contends that the vehicle that was
confiscated was ordered to be released on sapurdari by the trial Court vide
order dated 18.11.2023 (Annexure P3) passed on an application filed by
the petitioner. However, an onerous condition of furnishing Sapurdari
Bonds in the shape of Bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- has
been imposed. He further submits that he is ready to furnish the personal
bonds and an additional surety bonds of Rs.5,00,000/- instead of the
aforesaid condition. He further submits that the petitioner is a poor person
and as such is unable to fulfill the condition of bank guarantee of
Rs.5,00,000/- He relies on the orders passed by this Court in CRM-M-
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007133
18703-2020 dated 23.02.2021 titled as "Arshdeep Singh vs. State of
Punjab" and CRM-M 5453-2022 dated 09.02.2022 in "Tejinder Singh
@ Honey vs. State of Punjab".
3. Notice of motion.
4. At the asking of the Court, Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, A.A.G.,
Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He
submits that the condition that has been imposed upon the petitioner is just
and reasonable and the impugned order has been rightly passed.
5. Heard.
6. As stated, the vehicle in question is no longer required by the
police and if it remains in their custody, shall loose its value and utility.
The petitioner is a poor person and is unable to furnish the cash/ bank
guarantee for the release of vehicle in question and in place of the same,
he is ready to furnish the personal bonds and an additional surety bonds of
Rs.5,00,000/-. Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in the case of "State
of Kerala vs. A.A.Ali", 2018 (4) RCR (Crl.) 112 had held that the Courts
should not insist on furnishing of the bank guarantee in such like cases.
7. In view of the afore-referred judgments and facts and
circumstances of the present case, the present petition is disposed of by
modifying the order of the trial Court only to the extent of furnishing
cash/ bank guarantee, in place of which, the petitioner is directed to
furnish personal bond and an additional surety bonds of Rs.5,00,000/-,
with one surety in the like amount, however, the remaining conditions of
the said order will remain intact.
18.01.2025 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
ps-I JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
