Laxmi Kanwar vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:40752)
2023 Latest Caselaw 10096 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Laxmi Kanwar vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:40752) on 24 November, 2023

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2023:RJ-JD:40752]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 439/2022

Smt. Laxmi Kanwar D/o Sh. Shaitan Singh, Aged About 21
Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Chandan, Teh. And Dist. Jaisalmer
Through Power Of Attorney Holder Bhakar Ram S/o Sh. Rajuram,
Aged 36 Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Village- Dholia, Post Lathi, Teh.
Pokaran, Jaisalmer (Raj.).
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Vikram Singh
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. SK Bhati, PP



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

24/11/2023

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. Petition, challege

has been made to the order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the

learned Special Judge, NDPS act Cases, Pokaran, Jaisalmer in

Sessions Case No.14/2021, whereby the learned Judge though

allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Section

451/457 Cr.P.C. but an onerous condition has been imposed to

furnihsed bank garantee of Rs.15 lacs.

2. Heard learned counsel for hte parties.

3. The law in regard to deliver interim custody of the vehicle

pending trial has been enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court

in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat,

reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 and whereafter in the judgment of

Sainaba Vs. The State of Kerala & Anr.

[2023:RJ-JD:40752] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-439/2022]

4. It is observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court that allowing

thevehicle to be parked or stationed in an open area in the

policeStation, may get deterioration and can cause depletion of

the property which would be a loss to the national asset.

Anywhere inthe above cited judgments, furnishing of bank

guarantee has notbeen made compulsory. All the conditions,

excpet furnishing of bank guarantee, are absolutely in consonance

of the legal provision, but the condition of furnishing bank

guarantee, in my view is onerous and averse to the interest of the

petitioner because furnishing bank guarantee would mean

depositing Rs.15,00,000/- in the bank and then to get the

guarantee which is not purport of law.

5. Accordingly, the misc. petition is allowed to the extent of

waiving off the condition of furnishing bank gurantee and the rest

of the conditions of the order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the

learned Special Judge, NDPS act Cases, Pokaran, Jaisalmer in

Sessions Case No.14/2021 shall remain the same. The impugned

order dated 06.01.2022 is hereby modified to the above extent.

Thus, the learned learned Special Judge, NDPS act Cases,

Pokaran, Jaisalmer is directed to release the vehicle of the

petitioner in accordance with this order.

(FARJAND ALI),J 528-divya/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)