Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jaikishan vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas
[2023/RJJD/002110]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 586/2022
Jaikishan S/o Shri Oma Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Dolikallan, P.s. Kalyanpur, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. BR Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Judgment
24/01/2023
The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 13.4.2022 passed by the learned Special
Judge, NPDS Cases No.1, Chittorgarh in Cr. Misc. Case
No.232/2022 whereby, the vehicle bearing registration
No.RJ39.CA.4420 owned by the petitioner was directed to be
released to it on Supardaginama subject to deposit of bank
guarantee of Rs.1,50,000/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition
imposed by the learned court below on the petitioner to deposit a
bank guarantee of Rs.1,50,000/- while directing release of the
vehicle in interim custody is a harsh condition. He submits that
instead of bank guarantee, solvent surety should have been asked
[2023/RJJD/002110] (2 of 3) [CRLR-586/2022]
for. He relies on the decision of a Single Bench of this Court in the
case of Tasbeer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in
2003(1) RCC 393 in support of his argument. He thus prays that
the condition imposed by the learned trial court deserves to be
modified.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar
and perused the impugned order.
In the opinion of this Court, once the learned trial court
decided to release the vehicle in question to the petitioner in
interim custody on furnishing Supardaginama, imposing of
condition of furnishing a bank guarantee to the tune of
Rs.1,50,000/- was unreasonable and too onerous. This is more so
because the trial of the criminal case is yet to be conducted. This
Court in the case of Tasbeer Singh (supra) held that imposing
the condition of furnishing bank guarantee whilst releasing the
vehicle on Supardaginama is unreasonable. The said condition was
modified and the vehicle was directed to be released on furnishing
solvent security and personal bond.
Accordingly, the revision petition succeeds and is allowed.
The impugned order dated 13.4.2022 passed by the learned
Special Judge, NPDS Cases No.1, Chittorgarh in Cr. Misc. Case
No.232/2022 is modified. Now the registered vehicle of the
petitioner bearing registration No.RJ39.CA.4420 shall be handed
over to him in interim custody pending disposal of the case upon
his furnishing a solvent security of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lac fifty
thousand) and a personal bond in the like amount to the
[2023/RJJD/002110] (3 of 3) [CRLR-586/2022]
satisfaction of the Special Judge, NPDS Cases No.1, Chittorgarh.
However, it is made clear that the other conditions imposed by the
learned trial court in order dated 13.4.2022 shall remain in force.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
103-CPGoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
